"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> "ImStillMags" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> I didn't call you a liar.....seriously. I just found it hard to
>>>> believe that a hospital would serve a heart patient red meat. I
>>>> would have expected a soft food diet for you after major surgery.
>
>
> Ahh, Ed, I didn't write the above. I wrote about my own experience afer a
> cholecystectomy here in UK.
>
>
>> My wife was in Critical Care and then the Cardiac unit on the cardio
>> diet.
>> At least twice a week she was given beef. Chicken, pork, and fish were
>> frequent as you may expect, and eggs for breakfast.

Sorry, I think I missed cutting your name. Anyway, the person doubting beef
is not up on good diet.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 08:02:30 -0500, Dave Smith wrote:

> On 13/11/2010 8:23 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>
>>> I don't know if Imstilllost is objecting to the term "slab"
>>> as it if was too large a portion, but he has a habit of jumping in and
>>> accusing others of lying about things about which he has direct knowledge.
>>
>> I didn't call you a liar.....seriously. I just found it hard to
>> believe that a hospital would serve a heart patient red meat. I
>> would have expected a soft food diet for you after major surgery. I
>> am flabbergasted that they would serve you that much solid food and
>> especially meat. Sorry, didn't mean to come off like some old bitch.
>
> It was the first solid food meal. My first meal, if you can call it
> that was a very small container of yoghurt, some juice and a container
> of apple sauce. The first solid food meal was a slice of roast beef.
> IIRC, dinner the next night was equally dried our roast pork.
>
> Sorry if I am a little over sensitive. I am still in a state of semi
> fog. For the first three days I was so pumped full of pain killers that
> I was hallucinating.

every cloud has a silver lining.

your pal,
blake

David Harmon wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:21:27 -0800 in rec.food.cooking, Mark Thorson
> > wrote,
> >It is very well documented from clinical studies
> >that diets high in saturated fat lead to
> >cardiovascular disease.
>
> It is not very well documented at all. Most of those studies failed
> to distinguish between natural saturated fat and hydrogenated trans-
> fats, and therefore turn out to be worthless.

Baloney. That's what the quacks selling coconut
oil want you to believe.

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> It was supposed to be a simple angiogram to rule out the possibility of
> blocked arteries. If they found a blockage they would try repair it
> right way. I was supposed o go in at 10 am , hour long procedures and
> then home. There are risks to some procedures, and I thought that 1 in
> a thousand sounded good. How was I to know I would be the one.
>
horror story snipped

> If the pain was not bad enough, I think the medication has slowed down
> time, almost to a stop. I was so bored. Hours passed like weeks. Then
> my first meal came..... a slab of beef and some rice. It was awful.
>
I remember getting Froot Loops on my breakfast tray one morning. I was
appalled.
>
> I spent 4 days in the ICU and was then moved to rehab for the rest of my
> stay. They finally let me out yesterday. It is amazing how tired you can
> get from walking 20 yards.
>
Dave,

Sorry to hear about your VERY bad week. Take it easy getting on the
road to recovery. I assume you are going to get more cardiac rehab to
rebuild your strength. As far as food goes, get a bit more lean protein
in to help heal the ribs and chest.

Cindy

--
C.J. Fuller

Delete the obvious to email me

Mark Thorson wrote:
> "Jean B." wrote:
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> Roy wrote:
>>>> Saturated fat is good for you...eat all you want. Your body doesn't
>>> It is very well documented from clinical studies
>>> that diets high in saturated fat lead to
>>> cardiovascular disease.
>> How old are those studies?
>
> Here's one from 2001.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11593354
>
> And another from 2004.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15159229
>
> If you want older ones, they go back
> at least as far as the 1950's.

Read some more-recent studies.

--
Jean B.

"Jean B." wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > "Jean B." wrote:
> >> Mark Thorson wrote:
> >>> Roy wrote:
> >>>> Saturated fat is good for you...eat all you want. Your body doesn't
> >>> It is very well documented from clinical studies
> >>> that diets high in saturated fat lead to
> >>> cardiovascular disease.
> >> How old are those studies?
> >
> > Here's one from 2001.
> >
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11593354
> >
> > And another from 2004.
> >
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15159229
> >
> > If you want older ones, they go back
> > at least as far as the 1950's.
>
> Read some more-recent studies.

Like what? I cited clinical studies consistent
with over a half-century of clinical research.
Contradictory studies do not exist, except in the
imagination of quack salesmen of coconut oil to
ignorant rubes.

Mark Thorson wrote:
> "Jean B." wrote:
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> "Jean B." wrote:
>>>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>>>> Roy wrote:
>>>>>> Saturated fat is good for you...eat all you want. Your body doesn't
>>>>> It is very well documented from clinical studies
>>>>> that diets high in saturated fat lead to
>>>>> cardiovascular disease.
>>>> How old are those studies?
>>> Here's one from 2001.
>>>
>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11593354
>>>
>>> And another from 2004.
>>>
>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15159229
>>>
>>> If you want older ones, they go back
>>> at least as far as the 1950's.
>> Read some more-recent studies.
>
> Like what? I cited clinical studies consistent
> with over a half-century of clinical research.
> Contradictory studies do not exist, except in the
> imagination of quack salesmen of coconut oil to
> ignorant rubes.

You can start he

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...against-cardio

Note the "More Evidence" part. You are really behind the times.

--
Jean B.

On 18/11/2010 2:43 AM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> Omelet wrote:
>>
>> Some people don't like their set in stone ideas shattered. ;-)
>
> Such as yourself. In God we trust, everybody else
> bring data.
>
> I cite my sources, and they are primary sources
> in the refereed scientific literature. Advertising
> brochures and articles in popular magazines are not
> data.


I may not be a good one to talk on this topic since I was the one who
just had bypass surgery. However..... I have known people who ate high
fat and high salt diets without developing heart problems. I have known
people who had heart attacks without having a cholesterol problem. I
have known people who had very healthy diets and lifestyles who had
heart attacks before getting old. It is not a matter of one size fits all.

Jean B. wrote:
>>>> Roy wrote:
>
>>>>> Saturated fat is good for you...eat all you want. Your body doesn't
>>>> It is very well documented from clinical studies
>>>> that diets high in saturated fat lead to
>>>> cardiovascular disease.
>
> Read some more-recent studies.

Folks finally noticed that all prior studies had been done with high
carbs. It turns out going either low fat or low carb works to reduce
cholesterol for sizable percentages of the population - Neither works
for everyone. When low carbing saturated fat is beneficial.

So it's the sum of carbs plus saturated fat not just the saturated fat.
Cut either.

Dave Smith wrote:

>
> I may not be a good one to talk on this topic since I was the one who
> just had bypass surgery. However..... I have known people who ate high
> fat and high salt diets without developing heart problems. I have known
> people who had heart attacks without having a cholesterol problem. I
> have known people who had very healthy diets and lifestyles who had
> heart attacks before getting old. It is not a matter of one size fits all.
>
>

Sometimes it's all in the genes.

gloria p

Omelet wrote:
> In article >, "Jean B." >
> wrote:
>
>>>> Read some more-recent studies.
>>> Like what? I cited clinical studies consistent
>>> with over a half-century of clinical research.
>>> Contradictory studies do not exist, except in the
>>> imagination of quack salesmen of coconut oil to
>>> ignorant rubes.
>> You can start he
>>
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...against-cardio
>>
>> Note the "More Evidence" part. You are really behind the times.
>>
>> --
>> Jean B.
>
> Some people don't like their set in stone ideas shattered. ;-)

That does seem to be the case--with some doctors and so-called
experts too, alas.

--
Jean B.

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:


> I may not be a good one to talk on this topic since I was the one who
> just had bypass surgery. However..... I have known people who ate high
> fat and high salt diets without developing heart problems. I have known
> people who had heart attacks without having a cholesterol problem. I
> have known people who had very healthy diets and lifestyles who had
> heart attacks before getting old. It is not a matter of one size fits all.

That's certainly true. I don't think anyone is claiming that we really
have any answers for *any* of this. All that we can hope for, is that
we can get some advice as to what things help, and what things hurt. We
can all find tons of examples of people who did everything "right", and
died of a young age of a heart attack/stroke, and others who did
everything "wrong", and lived to be a hundred, only dying of "natural
causes".

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"Jean B." wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > Like what? I cited clinical studies consistent
> > with over a half-century of clinical research.
> > Contradictory studies do not exist, except in the
> > imagination of quack salesmen of coconut oil to
> > ignorant rubes.
>
> You can start he
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...against-cardio
>
> Note the "More Evidence" part. You are really behind the times.

That article written for the popular press
misinterprets a scientific paper, in this
case a meta-analysis, not a clinical study.

It says: "The analysis, overseen by Ronald M. Krauss,
director of atherosclerosis research at the Children's
Hospital Oakland Research Institute, found no association
between the amount of saturated fat consumed and the risk
of heart disease."

A more recent meta-analysis from the same group is
available he

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2943062

Quoting from that paper:

"Epidemiologic studies and randomized clinical trials
have provided consistent evidence that replacing
saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat, but not
carbohydrates, is beneficial for coronary heart disease.
Therefore, dietary recommendations should emphasize
substitution of polyunsaturated fat and minimally
processed grains for saturated fat."

Why would they advocate replacement of saturated fat
at all unless it was unhealthful?

The original March meta-analysis paper is he

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20089734

Quoting from that paper:

"In summary, although substitution of dietary
polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat has been shown to
lower CVD risk, there are few epidemiologic or clinical
trial data to support a benefit of replacing saturated
fat with carbohydrate."

_Scientific_American_ got it wrong. The quality of
the writers for that magazine has plummeted in recent
years.

And you got it wrong. Saturated fat is bad for you.
Anyone aware of the clinical data knows this.
Articles in newspapers and magazines are not reliable
sources of information. I always go to primary sources,
not popular articles written by hack writers.

Omelet wrote:
>
> Some people don't like their set in stone ideas shattered. ;-)

Such as yourself. In God we trust, everybody else
bring data.

I cite my sources, and they are primary sources
in the refereed scientific literature. Advertising
brochures and articles in popular magazines are not
data.

In article >, "Jean B." >
wrote:


> You can start he
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...against-cardio
>
> Note the "More Evidence" part. You are really behind the times.

Frankly, I'd rather be behind the times. When I read this "new" stuff,
sometimes it seems like I can't even finish the article before somebody
comes up with something new that supersedes it. So, I just don't pay a
lot of attention. And after a few months, they're back to the old story
again.

So, I read the article above:

"suggests a reason why: investigators may have picked the wrong culprit"

"But saturated fats may ultimately be neutral compared with processed
carbs and sugars"

Not confidence builders. Where does it say that the previous data about
saturated fats is wrong? It doesn't, that I saw. It just says that
maybe, some other things are worse. Well, we need to watch ALL the bad
things, not just pick one.

Reminds me of the flap about sugar many years ago. It was just EVIL.
It was the cause of all the problems of the world. I'd read about
people eating a "healthy breakfast". Three eggs fried in butter, three
pieces of bacon, three slices of toast slathered with butter and three
cups of coffee with generous amounts of cream. Why was that healthy?
Note that there was no jam on the toast, nor sugar in the coffee. Those
had been eliminated, so now it was a "healthy breakfast". How did that
happen? One explanation was that advice had been given to "eliminate
sweets". So, people ate whatever they wanted, but cut out insignificant
amounts of sugar so they would have "healthy diets". But what kind of
"sweets" were really being advised against? Ice cream and pie, foods
high in saturated fats, and thus calories! The word "sweets" may not
have been intended to apply to sugar at all! If you were looking to cut
something out of your diet, mostly to control your weight, cut out the
dessert, not the vegetables. Pretty simple.

So, I read the article. As others have commented, it's not a study.
It's not an article about a study. It's a popular science article about
a scientific review of some literature.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article
>,
Roy > wrote:

> On Nov 18, 11:18*am, Dan Abel > wrote:
> > In article >, "Jean B." >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > You can start he
> >
> > >http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...against-cardio
> >
> > > Note the "More Evidence" part. *You are really behind the times.
> >
> > Frankly, I'd rather be behind the times. *When I read this "new" stuff,
> > sometimes it seems like I can't even finish the article before somebody
> > comes up with something new that supersedes it. *So, I just don't pay a
> > lot of attention. *And after a few months, they're back to the old story
> > again.
> >
> > So, I read the article above:
> >
> > "suggests a reason why: investigators may have picked the wrong culprit"
> >
> > "But saturated fats may ultimately be neutral compared with processed
> > carbs and sugars"
> >
> > Not confidence builders. *Where does it say that the previous data about
> > saturated fats is wrong? *It doesn't, that I saw. *It just says that
> > maybe, some other things are worse. *Well, we need to watch ALL the bad
> > things, not just pick one. *

> It is a good article for sure.

Is it a good article because there was useful information? If so, what
was it? Or was it a good article because it said what you wanted to
hear, that you don't need to worry about saturated fat?

> I had an extensive heart scan a while back and after seven decades of
> eating saturated fats my heart performed like that of a young man.

Everybody is different. Congrats on a healthy heart!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >, "Jean B." >
> wrote:
>
>
>> You can start he
>>
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...against-cardio
>>
>> Note the "More Evidence" part. You are really behind the times.
>
> Frankly, I'd rather be behind the times. When I read this "new" stuff,
> sometimes it seems like I can't even finish the article before somebody
> comes up with something new that supersedes it. So, I just don't pay a
> lot of attention. And after a few months, they're back to the old story
> again.
>
> So, I read the article above:
>
> "suggests a reason why: investigators may have picked the wrong culprit"
>
> "But saturated fats may ultimately be neutral compared with processed
> carbs and sugars"
>
> Not confidence builders. Where does it say that the previous data about
> saturated fats is wrong? It doesn't, that I saw. It just says that
> maybe, some other things are worse. Well, we need to watch ALL the bad
> things, not just pick one.
>
> Reminds me of the flap about sugar many years ago. It was just EVIL.
> It was the cause of all the problems of the world. I'd read about
> people eating a "healthy breakfast". Three eggs fried in butter, three
> pieces of bacon, three slices of toast slathered with butter and three
> cups of coffee with generous amounts of cream. Why was that healthy?
> Note that there was no jam on the toast, nor sugar in the coffee. Those
> had been eliminated, so now it was a "healthy breakfast". How did that
> happen? One explanation was that advice had been given to "eliminate
> sweets". So, people ate whatever they wanted, but cut out insignificant
> amounts of sugar so they would have "healthy diets". But what kind of
> "sweets" were really being advised against? Ice cream and pie, foods
> high in saturated fats, and thus calories! The word "sweets" may not
> have been intended to apply to sugar at all! If you were looking to cut
> something out of your diet, mostly to control your weight, cut out the
> dessert, not the vegetables. Pretty simple.
>
> So, I read the article. As others have commented, it's not a study.
> It's not an article about a study. It's a popular science article about
> a scientific review of some literature.
>
Yes, but you can then look into that study if you choose to.

BUT you have a very good point. All of the to-ing and fro-ing
makes one kind-of want to say to hell with all of this research,
since tomorrow it may be repudiated.

--
Jean B.

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> On 18/11/2010 2:43 AM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> > Omelet wrote:
> >>
> >> Some people don't like their set in stone ideas shattered. ;-)
> >
> > Such as yourself. In God we trust, everybody else
> > bring data.
> >
> > I cite my sources, and they are primary sources
> > in the refereed scientific literature. Advertising
> > brochures and articles in popular magazines are not
> > data.
>
>
> I may not be a good one to talk on this topic since I was the one who
> just had bypass surgery. However..... I have known people who ate high
> fat and high salt diets without developing heart problems. I have known
> people who had heart attacks without having a cholesterol problem. I
> have known people who had very healthy diets and lifestyles who had
> heart attacks before getting old. It is not a matter of one size fits all.

Genetics and lifestyle do play a big role. My grandfather couldn't
abide skim milk or much else in the low fat family. He died of
(presumably) his first heart attack at the age of 90, after a day of
cutting brush on the farm. Then there is my type AAA former (nutrition)
department chair, who had no risk factors but had a heart attack at age
49. He had a valve problem, which was discovered at the time of the
heart attack.

Cindy

--
C.J. Fuller

Delete the obvious to email me