On 6/26/2012 12:35 PM, Steve Freides wrote:
> Pennyaline wrote:
>> On 6/25/2012 3:39 PM, Steve Freides wrote:
>>
>>> The phrase "fat intake" is an oversimplification and ought not be
>>> part of any conversation about cholesterol levels.
>>
>> Perhaps not for medical scientists and practitioners, but for the lay
>> public it's just fine.
>
> For the lay public to think the earth is flat would be less harmful.
>
> It's fine to simply; it's not fine to oversimplify. It would be no
> different if you were trying to call "food" bad or good for you - food
> can be both, depending on what kind of food. Fat can be good or bad,
> depending on what type of fat.
>
> This is not a difficult distinction to wrap your brain around - if it
> could be found in a food source 150 years ago, it's most likely a fat
> that's good for you; if it's engineered, it's most likely not. It can
> be tough to tell the difference from an ingredients list on the side of
> a package, but the difference is your health.
>
>>> There are fats that hurt
>>> and fats that heal, e.g., hydrogenated fat is far worse than anything
>>> you'll find in any unprocessed animal product. The new knowledge
>>> has, indeed, erased the old but if and only if you care to pay
>>> attention to the details - simply thinking of your food as being
>>> either fat or carb just isn't detailed enough because both can hurt
>>> and both can be heal.
>>
>>
>> Where has the new knowledge erased the old? It hasn't, that I can see.
>> It has been modified, several times, but not erased.
>
> See above. The new knowledge is that certain fats are not only _not_
> bad for you, they're good for you and you'll be healthier for eating
> them regularly.


Swell, but what you're taking such pains to explain to me so carefully
is not new knowledge, especially to someone in the health care field. So
"new" knowledge has indeed not erased the "old," since you're unclear on
what the new and the old are.

Even the newest speculation about the actual benefits of HDL has not yet
completely undone the "old" conviction. It has done a little shake up,
and may yet result in rearrangement, but nothing has really been wholly
discounted.

But whatever. The original problem here is that Ms. Bove is again making
the blanket statement that carb intake and genetics are the sole causes
of high serum cholesterol. She is mistaken.