Re: lowering cholesterol...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/14/04 11:30:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, katja@...

writes:

> know now that cholesterol is in fact *not* bad for us, but

> what i haven't seen any talk about is whether the distinction between good

> and bad cholesterol is myth.

It probably is-- not only that, but it is LDL specifically (the " bad "

cholesterol) that seems to guard against infection.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/14/04 2:23:08 PM, ChrisMasterjohn@... writes:

>

> It probably is-- not only that, but it is LDL specifically (the " bad "

> cholesterol) that seems to guard against infection.

>

would that include cancer as well?

Elainie

>

>

[Guest guest]

> " lowering " cholesterol...

>

>what i haven't seen any talk about is whether the distinction between good

>and bad cholesterol is myth. it seems to me that it's possible the bad

>cholesterol is still bad, and that's made by transfats and stuff. but it

>also seems possible that there is no such thing as bad cholesterol.

>

>does anyone know what is true?

No bad cholesterol.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

>what i haven't seen any talk about is whether the distinction between good

>and bad cholesterol is myth. it seems to me that it's possible the bad

>cholesterol is still bad, and that's made by transfats and stuff. but it

>also seems possible that there is no such thing as bad cholesterol.

>

>does anyone know what is true?

>

>thanks,

>katja

I'm not sure myself ... it's getting more complex

as they discover more. Lately the press has been

on " homocystein " which seems to be a bad actor ...

you produce that when you don't get enough B6

I believe. And triglycerides ... which you produce

when you eat too many starchy/sugary foods. And

the " small dense " cholesterol, which rises when

trigycerides rise. And the ratio between " good "

and " bad " seems more important than the absolute

numbers.

Anyway, eating more meat and less quick-digesting

starches/sugars (like sodas, breakfast cereals etc)

is probably the best way to lower homocystein and

triglycerides. I'm not sure what the effect of

raw milk is on those, if that is the only change

in the diet.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

If he just wants to play with his cholesterol numbers, tell him to cut

out the starch/sugar. I like to refer people to the 4-part article on

www.mercola.com about the metabolic effects of insulin.

The happy milk will no doubt help him because it contains valuable

nutrients that he is probably deficient in. But if he continues to

eat hydrogenated soybean oil, refined starch and sugar, high fructose

corn syrup, insufficient complete protein and natural fat...then happy

milk probably won't be the magic bullet that will make him thrive

inspite of all the other dietary mistakes. He might find it helps

things like joint pain and energy level.

My two cents' worth!

> more houseguests, more questions

>

> these houseguests liked the pie. don'tcha know, i make it for

*everyone*

> now, just to spite that first group who didn't appreciate it!

>

> anyway. so this was a coworker and his wife, and we've been talking

a lot

> about nutrition. he's finally starting to consider the possibility of

> changing some of his diet. he asked the following question, which

gave me

> some questions of my own:

>

> " if i changed nothing else in my diet (which is SAD but on the

healthier

> end of SAD) but stopped drinking " bad milk " and started drinking one

pint a

> day of " happy milk " (raw grassfed organic), would that lower my

cholesterol

> (specifically, his definition was: either raise the good cholesterol

and

> lower the bad cholesterol, or just raise the good cholesterol and

not raise

> the bad cholesterol) "

>

> i thought about that for a while, and i feel inclined to say that no

matter

> what, the inclusion of happy milk will help your body, but since he

had a

> very specific indicator he was looking for, it was hard for me to

answer.

> in particular, because i'm not certain about the good and bad

> cholesterols...i know now that cholesterol is in fact *not* bad for

us, but

> what i haven't seen any talk about is whether the distinction

between good

> and bad cholesterol is myth. it seems to me that it's possible the bad

> cholesterol is still bad, and that's made by transfats and stuff.

but it

> also seems possible that there is no such thing as bad cholesterol.

>

> does anyone know what is true?

>

> thanks,

> katja

[Guest guest]

Psssst...I'm not Chris...but I wouldn't be surprised if it did include

cancer as well.

The people I've known personally who had cancer were people who got it

when they trying to follow the low-fat/high-carb rules, not when they

were enjoying themselves by eating plenty of meat and natural fat.

>

> In a message dated 3/14/04 2:23:08 PM, ChrisMasterjohn@a... writes:

>

>

> >

> > It probably is-- not only that, but it is LDL specifically (the " bad "

> > cholesterol) that seems to guard against infection.

> >

> would that include cancer as well?

>

> Elainie

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " " <toyotaokiec@...>

> Psssst...I'm not Chris...but I wouldn't be surprised if it did include

> cancer as well.

>

> The people I've known personally who had cancer were people who got it

> when they trying to follow the low-fat/high-carb rules, not when they

> were enjoying themselves by eating plenty of meat and natural fat.

Are you taking into account the fact that cancer often (usually?) grows

for several years before detection?

[Guest guest]

I'm not sure myself ... it's getting more complex

as they discover more. Lately the press has been

on " homocystein " which seems to be a bad actor ...

you produce that when you don't get enough B6

I believe. And triglycerides ... which you produce

when you eat too many starchy/sugary foods. And

the " small dense " cholesterol, which rises when

trigycerides rise. And the ratio between " good "

and " bad " seems more important than the absolute

numbers.

Anyway, eating more meat and less quick-digesting

starches/sugars (like sodas, breakfast cereals etc)

is probably the best way to lower homocystein and

triglycerides. I'm not sure what the effect of

raw milk is on those, if that is the only change

in the diet. - Heidi Jean

----------------------------------

Recent studies have shown vegetarians to have elevated levels of both

homocystein and triglycerides. Vegetarian diets are high in carbohydrates.

Dr. Ornish's heart disease program has shown positive results for reversing

heart disease, however, diet is but one variable being changed in this plan.

And the diet he prescribes - nearly vegan, less than 10% fat - has had the

following effects:

" A factor often overlooked in Ornish's work is the effect of low fat/high

carbohydrate diets on lipid profiles. While it is true, the experimental

group had an overall reduction in cholesterol, there was a concomitant

reduction in HDL cholesterol with an increase in triglycerides. "

http://www.mercola.com/article/carbohydrates/scientific_evidence_low_grains2

..htm

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> " A factor often overlooked in Ornish's work is the effect of low fat/high

>carbohydrate diets on lipid profiles. While it is true, the experimental

>group had an overall reduction in cholesterol, there was a concomitant

>reduction in HDL cholesterol with an increase in triglycerides. "

When I was a kid, my aunt was working on one of the early

studies on cholesterol. They had these special rats

that would die from athlersclorosis in 6 weeks if they

were fed a diet of lard and sugar. She sliced up their hearts

and did electron microscope pictures of the arteries

to see what the damage was. They found that if the

rats were forced to exercise (these particular rats would

NOT exercise, for some reason) then they didn't get ath.

Anyway, they put some of these rats on a diet of nothing

but [high-cholesterol] eggs. The rats did fine!

They also put some rats on nothing but breakfast cereal (no

cholesterol, low fat). They died as fast as the lard/sugar rats,

with blocked arteries.

It would have been interesting to put those rats on a diet

of, say, fatty meat and vegies (a paleo diet). Seems like

an easy experiment to do, if you can get hold of that

breed of rats.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> They also put some rats on nothing but breakfast cereal (no

> cholesterol, low fat). They died as fast as the lard/sugar rats,

> with blocked arteries.

> -- Heidi Jean

Was it real lard or shortening? Lot of people were fooled that shortening

was lard because it looks the same. My Dad ate lard sandwiches before they

used shortening during the depression. Sugar and lard sandwiches less. He's

in his 80's.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>Was it real lard or shortening? Lot of people were fooled that shortening

>was lard because it looks the same. My Dad ate lard sandwiches before they

>used shortening during the depression. Sugar and lard sandwiches less. He's

>in his 80's.

>

>Wanita

I suspect it was lard. In those days shortening was considered ok for

arteries, and they were trying to get the rats sick! I don't know

why they added sugar though, probably because they figured

the rats needed some carb ... I expect the sugar did them in. I don't

know the details, but I've heard that high fat plus high sugar is

a dangerous combo (sugar gets the insulin going).

As for your dad ... these rats had special genes. You can probably

feed your average rat that diet and it would be ok. Or maybe

he got more exercise ... even these " special " rats were ok with

1/2 hour of exercise a day. Since exercise does wonders for

insulin resistance, the issue may be more insulin/inflammation related ...

diabetics

get heart disease much easier than anyone else.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> >Was it real lard or shortening? Lot of people were fooled that

shortening

> >was lard because it looks the same. My Dad ate lard sandwiches before

they

> >used shortening during the depression. Sugar and lard sandwiches less.

He's

> >in his 80's.

> >

> >Wanita

>

> I suspect it was lard. In those days shortening was considered ok for

> arteries, and they were trying to get the rats sick! I don't know

> why they added sugar though, probably because they figured

> the rats needed some carb ... I expect the sugar did them in. I don't

> know the details, but I've heard that high fat plus high sugar is

> a dangerous combo (sugar gets the insulin going).

>

> As for your dad ... these rats had special genes. You can probably

> feed your average rat that diet and it would be ok. Or maybe

> he got more exercise ... even these " special " rats were ok with

> 1/2 hour of exercise a day. Since exercise does wonders for

> insulin resistance, the issue may be more insulin/inflammation related ...

diabetics

> get heart disease much easier than anyone else.

>

> -- Heidi Jean

Not following you. Shortening then was hydrogenated trans fat vegetable

shortening as it is now. Lard is rendered saturated fat from pork. Know you

know this. Can't see how real lard would factor in but shortening called

lard would. Trans fats and sugar would clog the arteries. Dad's lard was

from homegrown pigs. Exercise, he's always done physical work and still

putters most of the day. Was there yesterday and he was splitting wood

someone dropped off. Parents do use oils, margarine and shortening since

they stopped raising pigs as we grew up and moved out. Have talked myself

blue in the face trying to get Mom to go to butter at least. Listens to

diabetes doctor and that diet. Mom said my brother needed full dentures. I

mentioned how my mouth ulcers went away after cutting out grains and cutting

out sugar before didn't affect them. Dad was in earshot, know his teeth have

been bothering him. He came into the kitchen from the living room to listen.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>Not following you. Shortening then was hydrogenated trans fat vegetable

>shortening as it is now. Lard is rendered saturated fat from pork. Know you

>know this. Can't see how real lard would factor in but shortening called

>lard would. Trans fats and sugar would clog the arteries.

I *don't* think the lard was what clogged their arteries, is the thing. I think

it was the sugar. Or some combination of fat and sugar in general (too much

food causing diabetic problems).

If it was the lard, then breakfast cereal should have

been fine, and eggs should have killed them. Also, it was probably hydrogenated

lard (the kind you buy at the store) as I doubt any lab in the '60s would have

gone and got good lard or rendered it.

> Dad's lard was

>from homegrown pigs. Exercise, he's always done physical work and still

>putters most of the day. Was there yesterday and he was splitting wood

>someone dropped off. Parents do use oils, margarine and shortening since

>they stopped raising pigs as we grew up and moved out. Have talked myself

>blue in the face trying to get Mom to go to butter at least. Listens to

>diabetes doctor and that diet. Mom said my brother needed full dentures. I

>mentioned how my mouth ulcers went away after cutting out grains and cutting

>out sugar before didn't affect them. Dad was in earshot, know his teeth have

>been bothering him. He came into the kitchen from the living room to listen.

>

My Mom still uses margerine too, and shortening. And won't even try

my wheatless stuff. She has horrible arthritis and joint pains. But she

does eat plenty of good meat which is why I think she's hit 80 ... she

always taught me that a meal has to have some meat in it!

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/14/04 3:20:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, zumicat@...

writes:

> >It probably is-- not only that, but it is LDL specifically (the " bad "

> >cholesterol) that seems to guard against infection.

> >

> would that include cancer as well?

I've read that low cholesterol is a cancer risk, but I don't know about LDL

specifically. My info regarding infections is from Uffe Rafnskov's lecture at

the last WAPF conference. I seem to have misplaced my notes at the moment,

but they are in the archives of this list, back a little less than a year ago.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/16/04 2:06:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,

ChrisMasterjohn@... writes:

> I've read that low cholesterol is a cancer risk, but I don't know about LDL

>

> specifically. My info regarding infections is from Uffe Rafnskov's lecture

> at

> the last WAPF conference. I seem to have misplaced my notes at the moment,

> but they are in the archives of this list, back a little less than a year

> ago.

>

I just checked, and the only thing related to cancer that Ravnskov talked

about at the conference was statins.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Did he say anything that isn't already in his book? I'll have to look through

te archives.

Elainie

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/16/04 11:15:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, zumicat@...

writes:

> Did he say anything that isn't already in his book? I'll have to look

> through

> te archives.

Yes, I think so. He described his theory that blood cholesterol protects

against infection, and I don't think he mentioned this in his book at all, or at

least not in any depth if he did.

Here are some highlights (more detail in the notes I posted before):

--Low blood cholesterol is associated with increased infection risk

(including HIV)

--Inverse association with child mortality and blood cholesterol levels

--Inborn cholesterol synthesis incapacity (-Lemi-Opite Syndrome) causes

stillbirth, congenital CNS deformities, mental retardation, polyneuropathy, and

*frequent and severe infections* / All of these symptoms are successfully

treated with the administration of cholesterol

--Inborn low-cholsterol leads to increased susceptibility to infection

--Young people with familial hypercholesterolemia have dramatically increased

risk of heart disease (although still very low), but as they get older, and

other cause death risk increases, the gap shrinks such that older people have

lower total mortality, indicating a protective effect for other causes of

deeath

--Mice with inborn hypercholesterolemia survived bacterial injections (30%)

that killed 100% of the control group, even when 8 times more endotoxin was

delivered to the hypercholesterolemic group

--In vitro, cholesterol destroys endotoxin, and LDL is more effective than

HDL. Serum is most effective, but cholesterol-purified serum has no protective

effect.

--High LDL is associated with higher lymphocytes, total Ts, Helper Ts, and

cytotox super (or support?) T cells

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/16/04 4:10:53 PM, ChrisMasterjohn@... writes:

>

> Here are some highlights (more detail in the notes I posted before):

> --Low blood cholesterol is associated with increased infection risk

> (including HIV)

> --Inverse association with child mortality and blood cholesterol levels

> --Inborn cholesterol synthesis incapacity (-Lemi-Opite Syndrome) causes

> stillbirth, congenital CNS deformities, mental retardation, polyneuropathy,

> and

> *frequent and severe infections*  /  All of these symptoms are successfully

> treated with the administration of cholesterol

> --Inborn low-cholsterol leads to increased susceptibility to infection

> --Young people with familial hypercholesterolemia have dramatically

> increased

> risk of heart disease (although still very low), but as they get older, and

> other cause death risk increases, the gap shrinks such that older people

> have

> lower total mortality, indicating a protective effect for other causes of

> deeath

> --Mice with inborn hypercholesterolemia survived bacterial injections (30%)

> that killed 100% of the control group, even when 8 times more endotoxin was

> delivered to the hypercholesterolemic group

> --In vitro, cholesterol destroys endotoxin, and LDL is more effective than

> HDL.  Serum is most effective, but cholesterol-purified serum has no

> protective

> effect.

> --High LDL is associated with higher lymphocytes, total Ts, Helper Ts, and

> cytotox super (or support?) T cells

>

> Chris

>

>

Great, thanks for that info.

Elainie

[Guest guest]

Yeah...I asked my dad's oncologist how long his brain tumor had been

growing, and he said 6 months. Dad had been eating that

overprocessed fake " organic " food (and very little meat/fat) for

years before that.

I suspect my mom's cooking/eating habits changed after she no longer

had another person to cook for.... I can't imagine she was eating

more meat/fat than before.

And one of the other people I knew personally who got cancer got it

after he and his wife had lost tons of weight on Weight Watchers.

And another person got cancer after he had gotten really serious

about omitting animal fat from his diet.

That's in no way a scientific survey, but it looks like a pattern to

me. I can't think of a single person, personally known to me, with

whose eating habits I'm familiar, who got cancer while enjoying a

diet containing plenty of meat and natural fat.

--- In , " Berg " <bberg@c...>

wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: " " <toyotaokiec@y...>

> > Psssst...I'm not Chris...but I wouldn't be surprised if it did

include

> > cancer as well.

> >

> > The people I've known personally who had cancer were people who

got it

> > when they trying to follow the low-fat/high-carb rules, not when

they

> > were enjoying themselves by eating plenty of meat and natural fat.

>

> Are you taking into account the fact that cancer often (usually?)

grows

> for several years before detection?

[Guest guest]

> If it was the lard, then breakfast cereal should have

> been fine, and eggs should have killed them.

Got ya, both the sugar given with lard, breakfast cereal sugar/carbs being

the culprits

> Also, it was probably hydrogenated

> lard (the kind you buy at the store) as I doubt any lab in the '60s would

have

> gone and got good lard or rendered it.

Thought store lard was full of preservatives but not hydrogenated. If it was

hydrogenated lard that's like hydrogenating coconut oil.

>

>

> My Mom still uses margerine too, and shortening. And won't even try

> my wheatless stuff. She has horrible arthritis and joint pains. But she

> does eat plenty of good meat which is why I think she's hit 80 ... she

> always taught me that a meal has to have some meat in it!

Dad prefers butter, his diet has always been heavy on meat, his knees are

arthritic.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/16/04 9:27:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Thought store lard was full of preservatives but not hydrogenated. If it

> was

> hydrogenated lard that's like hydrogenating coconut oil.

Not really, because coconut oil is mostly saturated, whereas lard is a

majority unsaturated, hydrogenatable fat.

Chris

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@

anyway. so this was a coworker and his wife, and we've been talking a

lot about nutrition. he's finally starting to consider the

possibility of changing some of his diet. he asked the following

question, which gave me some questions of my own:

" if i changed nothing else in my diet (which is SAD but on the

healthier end of SAD) but stopped drinking " bad milk " and started

drinking one pint a day of " happy milk " (raw grassfed organic), would

that lower my cholesterol (specifically, his definition was: either

raise the good cholesterol and lower the bad cholesterol, or just

raise the good cholesterol and not raise the bad cholesterol) "

i thought about that for a while, and i feel inclined to say that no

matter what, the inclusion of happy milk will help your body, but

since he had a very specific indicator he was looking for, it was

hard for me to answer. in particular, because i'm not certain about

the good and bad cholesterols...i know now that cholesterol is in

fact *not* bad for us, but what i haven't seen any talk about is

whether the distinction between good and bad cholesterol is myth. it

seems to me that it's possible the bad cholesterol is still bad, and

that's made by transfats and stuff. but it also seems possible that

there is no such thing as bad cholesterol.

does anyone know what is true?

thanks,

katja

@@@@@@@@@@

The direct answer would be " There are no studies on the effect of

happy milk on cholesterol, so we just don't know. " I think it's

much better to just admit a lack of knowledge than make the vague

optimistic fudges so common when people make that illogical leap

from " food A has benefits x, y, z " to " food A is a panacea " .

So that was actually a really easy question to answer, allowing you

to immediately shift the topic, because, as is most often the case,

the best answer is to reject the question. At best, it appears that

blood cholesterol levels might be an indicator of other stuff, and of

no causal significance in themselves, so the logical approach is to

just deal with the " other stuff " and if you do " good stuff " relating

to " other stuff " then that's what matters. And given the variation

in what numbers are good for different people, using HDL/LDL ratios

as a measure of whether " something good happened with the other

stuff " is probably too crude and poorly understood to be reliable or

useful. It's all about other stuff. The conclusion of course is to

just totally ignore those measurements, but for scientific data

purposes, it's good for lots of people to have thorough lipid panels

in case some future statistician might do good with them.

I know this is old news for most of us on this list, but this is

good juncture to make a quick and clear rant about " good and bad

cholesterol " . The huge, basic, simple fact that is just not known

to 99% of the people in the world at the moment in whose

conversations and lives these terms appear is that there is only one

kind of cholesterol. It's a single, specific molecule. So-

called " good " and " bad " cholesterols are not even cholesterol; they

are lipoproteins that act as carriers in the bloodstream for the one

and only one molecule known as " cholesterol " . Of course, metonymy

is linguistically beautiful, but the downside here is that the

possibility of some significance to lipoprotein profiles fuels the

primary cholesterol myth by keeping the word " cholesterol " buzzing

like a multi-acre swarm, when it should've just been a handful of

bees that could've been put back in their hive a long time ago. To

be clear, the primary cholesterol myth is the conflation of dietary

cholesterol and blood cholesterol. Once that distinction is made

and a few basic facts are brought to light, 95% of the harm of the

cholesterol scandal can be undone, namely people abstaining from

crucially nutritious foods like eggs, meat (especially organs, fish,

shellfish), dairy, etc. So because of poorly understood and complex

issues involving lipoproteins, the average (and above-average) Jane

and Joe is still a victim of hyper-cholesterol-angst that translates

into poor food choices. So as to whether is such a thing as " bad

cholesterol " , there simply can't be if we're being literal and

precise, because cholesterol is only one thing, and since that one

thing is among the most crucial substances in the human body, only a

fool would call it " bad " .

But that's just terminology and sociology; as for the meat of the

matter and whether LDL matters, as far as I can tell it's an open

question with fairly skimpy evidence one way or another. It seems

that the cutting edge of research is subcategorizing lipoproteins

into finer degrees of density than just " high " and " low " and making

very specific claims about possible mechanisms, but without any

clinical or epidemiological evidence to corrobate theories since the

data for all the different kinds of lipoproteins just doesn't exist

for actual populations. At best, we might get some kind of link

between certain lipoproteins and certain carbohydrates and certain

SFAs that may only be relevant under pathological physiological

conditions, but this limited knowledge of isolated mechanisms

wouldn't have any bearing on the dietary tweaks that the nutritional

vanguard is focused on these days, like trying to increase MUFA/SFA

ratios by trimming steaks and using olive or canola oil, which I find

laughably absurd. In the end, most of this work is probably a waste

of time and it'll all come down to " cut the refined carbs, get the

PUFA ratios in some reasonable range, and get all the vitamins and

minerals " . Everything is lifestyle and phytochemicals. The thing

is, though, that so many of us have already figured that out!

So keeping in my mind that as above I'm taking all the lipoprotein

stuff with a two year's supply of CSS at member prices, and I find

all of this to be among the least interesting of nutritional topics,

I want to be a little critical of Ravnskov and many of us in the WAPF

scene. All too often I see people dismiss the whole cholesterol

thing out of hand, citing Ravnskov, citing irrelevant positive facts

about cholesterol, or just making some sweeping uninformed

generalization, when the fact is that Ravnskov has not to my

knowledge even publicly addressed the HDL/LDL issue beyond the brief

and superficial treatment in his book. Ravnskov has made crushing

arguments about the basic cholesterol myths--the easy stuff--but that

doesn't mean we can just write off a much larger set of valid

scientific propositions about the complex role of cholesterol in

human health. Yeah, we should definitely eat cholesterol, and yeah,

saturated fats are probably harmless, but that's not the full breadth

of the cholesterol topic, so when some of us WAPFers bundle

everything together and haughtily repudiate the topic, it's almost as

bad as the cholesterol fear-mongers who probably get nervous just

eating foods that were prepared in the same kitchen as something with

cholesterol in it.

But Katja, just tell that dude " [prefatory " yo man " is optional] If

you know x (e.g. drinking happier milk) is good for your health, then

just do it!!!! This isn't rocket science, just eat some good

food!!!! " . Every good food you eat means you eat one less bad

food. I mean, most " nutritionists " could be replaced by second-

graders with one day of training.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

[Guest guest]

The direct answer would be " There are no studies on the effect of

happy milk on cholesterol, so we just don't know. " I think it's

much better to just admit a lack of knowledge than make the vague

optimistic fudges so common when people make that illogical leap

from " food A has benefits x, y, z " to " food A is a panacea " .

. . .

Yeah, we should definitely eat cholesterol, and yeah,

saturated fats are probably harmless, but that's not the full breadth

of the cholesterol topic, so when some of us WAPFers bundle

everything together and haughtily repudiate the topic, it's almost as

bad as the cholesterol fear-mongers who probably get nervous just

eating foods that were prepared in the same kitchen as something with

cholesterol in it. - Mike

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you so much for this balanced response, Mike. I learned mucho lotso.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

At 06:42 PM 3/17/2004, you wrote:

>Thank you so much for this balanced response, Mike. I learned mucho lotso.

>

>Deanna

mee too. i just ordered a bumper sticker that says I HEART MICHAEL ANTON PARKER

-katja

[Guest guest]

> " if i changed nothing else in my diet (which is SAD but on the

> healthier end of SAD) but stopped drinking " bad milk " and started

> drinking one pint a day of " happy milk " (raw grassfed organic), would

> that lower my cholesterol (specifically, his definition was: either

> raise the good cholesterol and lower the bad cholesterol, or just

> raise the good cholesterol and not raise the bad cholesterol) "

> thanks,

> katja

High fructose corn syrup, mostly in sodas and a lot else elevates

triglycerides, bad cholesterol. That's from The Good Fat Cookbook by Fran Mc

Cullough. He might want to read labels and add that with the " happy milk. "

Guess " happy food " can be called a new, New England term. Been using it for

a while.:-)

Wanita