the malnourished prat John Coleman wrote:
>>You don't have good comprehension, do you? It's also a goalpost move: you
>>claimed that eating food high in cholesterol increased serum cholesterol.
>
> I made no such claim,

Liar.

> you just pulled that out of your head yourself, go
> back and read the original post.

I did.

>>consumed double the recommended allowance of cholesterol. Oxidation was
> highest
>>(TWICE as high) in the corn oil-fed group as in the beef tallow group.
>
> I'll make this easy -

That's the only way a malnourished prat like you could comprehend it anyway: simple.

> In what way does this research not support my
> contention that dietary cholesterol is bad for you?

For starters, the people already had moderately high cholesterol. It was raised
slightly for the study. The highest oxidation levels were observed in the group
fed corn oil -- TWICE as much oxidation as those eating beef tallow. Your point
doesn't stand, nitwit.

> If dietary cholesterol
> isn't bad for humans then why have a limit on it - why even bother about it?

Dietary cholesterol is only an issue for those with hypercholesterolemia, which
most often occurs because of endogenous cholesterol (over)production rather than
dietary intake.

> Why isn't cholesterol bad for cats and dogs, but is for humans

It isn't "bad" for humans except those who have hypercholesterolemia due to
endogenous issues. A diet high in saturated fats will also cause elevated LDL,
which is "bad."

> and other herbivores?

Humans are not herbivores, we're omnivores. As to the answer of your entire
bogus question, we have some physiological differences between cats and dogs
(which are closer to being full carnivores than we are).