Pennyaline wrote:
> 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.

No disrespect intended, but having read what you've both posted, I agree
with her and not with you, your credentials as "someone in the health
care field" notwithstanding. The new knowledge has indeed erased the
old and I'm quite clear what the old is.

You seem uninterested in evidence that runs contrary to your opinion so
I will stop participating in this discussion. I stand firmly by what
I've said so far. Best wishes and good health to you, and the last word
is yours if you want it.

-S-