"Pennyaline" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

I didn't say that at all. But are you trying to say now that excess carbs,
particularly of the kind like sugar do not raise triglycerides?