I found a crockpot recipe. Opened the box today and was not repelled by
the frozen sheets-they actually look like an ironed sheet of raw
hamburger frozen. Hope its good.

There are many recipes out there, from using the sheets as a low carb
sub for lasagne noodles to one enterprising cook who bakes or frys the
sheets then rolls up stuffing inside, fills a pan with the rolls, covers
with gravy, and bakes.

In the crock it says a splash of olive oil, a box of steakums, a red or
green pepper and a sweet onion chopped up, garlic salt or powder (i
didnt have so i used minced garlic) and last a dash of worcestershire
sauce or steak sauce. Cook on low 3-4hrs and then stir to break up. (I
broke my frozen steakums into strips/fourths before starting.)

I started late so I am doing high for 2hrs. Then spread mayo on your
hard roll add a slice of provolone and a large glop of the
steakums/pepper/onion mixture on top to melt the cheese. I dont have any
provolone so it will be a sharp white cheddar instead-or maybe my pepper
cheese havent decided.

The air is already smelling delicious-I have high hopes this will be
good.

"z z" > wrote in message
...
>I found a crockpot recipe. Opened the box today and was not repelled by
> the frozen sheets-they actually look like an ironed sheet of raw
> hamburger frozen. Hope its good.
>
> There are many recipes out there, from using the sheets as a low carb
> sub for lasagne noodles to one enterprising cook who bakes or frys the
> sheets then rolls up stuffing inside, fills a pan with the rolls, covers
> with gravy, and bakes.
>
> In the crock it says a splash of olive oil, a box of steakums, a red or
> green pepper and a sweet onion chopped up, garlic salt or powder (i
> didnt have so i used minced garlic) and last a dash of worcestershire
> sauce or steak sauce. Cook on low 3-4hrs and then stir to break up. (I
> broke my frozen steakums into strips/fourths before starting.)
>
> I started late so I am doing high for 2hrs. Then spread mayo on your
> hard roll add a slice of provolone and a large glop of the
> steakums/pepper/onion mixture on top to melt the cheese. I dont have any
> provolone so it will be a sharp white cheddar instead-or maybe my pepper
> cheese havent decided.
>
> The air is already smelling delicious-I have high hopes this will be
> good.

My husband and his friend like them.

"z z" > wrote in message
...
> I found a crockpot recipe. Opened the box today and was not repelled by
> the frozen sheets-they actually look like an ironed sheet of raw
> hamburger frozen. Hope its good.
>
(snippage)

Hope all you want. If that is what you aspire to, I really wish you well.
I'd also suggest making an appointment with a doctor to have your
cholesterol checked. Or maybe reading a cookbook Cooking isn't really
that difficult.

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> "z z" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I found a crockpot recipe. Opened the box today and was not repelled by
>> the frozen sheets-they actually look like an ironed sheet of raw
>> hamburger frozen. Hope its good.
>>
> (snippage)
>
> Hope all you want. If that is what you aspire to, I really wish you well.
> I'd also suggest making an appointment with a doctor to have your
> cholesterol checked. Or maybe reading a cookbook Cooking isn't really
> that difficult.
>
> Jill

Why would you even say that? It is excess carbs that lead to high
cholesterol. That and genetics. I also don't think Steak Ums are overly
fatty but I'm not sure because I've never eaten one.

I did once try to eat a Philly Cheese Steak. It was not for me.

In article >, "Julie Bove" >
wrote:

>
> Why would you even say that? It is excess carbs that lead to high
> cholesterol. That and genetics. I also don't think Steak Ums are overly
> fatty but I'm not sure because I've never eaten one.

there we have the typical bove pronouncement unbacked by any actual knowledge.

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:38:39 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:



>
>Why would you even say that? It is excess carbs that lead to high
>cholesterol.

I bet the medical profession would like to hear from you. Go, set
them straight.

On 6/24/2012 8:38 PM, Julie Bove wrote:

> Why would you even say that? It is excess carbs that lead to high
> cholesterol. That and genetics.


We've already been over this with you. You are wrong. High intake of
animal fats contributes to high cholesterol levels. Face it.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:38:39 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Why would you even say that? It is excess carbs that lead to high
>>cholesterol.
>
> I bet the medical profession would like to hear from you. Go, set
> them straight.

I don't think I need to! All of the Drs. I have seen and that my MIL has
seen do know this. MIL had horribly high cholesterol and it was discovered
that the aids who were feeding her were giving her almost all carbs. Once
she got into the nursing home and on a more balanced diet, her numbers fell.

"Pennyaline" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/24/2012 8:38 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>> Why would you even say that? It is excess carbs that lead to high
>> cholesterol. That and genetics.
>
>
> We've already been over this with you. You are wrong. High intake of
> animal fats contributes to high cholesterol levels. Face it.

And you would be wrong.

http://cholesterol.about.com/lw/Heal...holesterol.htm

On 6/25/2012 2:28 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
> nit> wrote in message
> ...
>> On 6/24/2012 8:38 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>>> Why would you even say that? It is excess carbs that lead to high
>>> cholesterol. That and genetics.
>>
>>
>> We've already been over this with you. You are wrong. High intake of
>> animal fats contributes to high cholesterol levels. Face it.
>
> And you would be wrong.
>
> http://cholesterol.about.com/lw/Heal...holesterol.htm



Sweet pea, you link does not suggest in any way that consumption of
animal fats does not contribute to high serum cholesterol levels, and as
such does not prove me wrong. Would you like to try again?

On 6/25/2012 2:23 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
> "Ed > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:38:39 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Why would you even say that? It is excess carbs that lead to high
>>> cholesterol.
>>
>> I bet the medical profession would like to hear from you. Go, set
>> them straight.
>
> I don't think I need to! All of the Drs. I have seen and that my MIL has
> seen do know this. MIL had horribly high cholesterol and it was discovered
> that the aids who were feeding her were giving her almost all carbs. Once
> she got into the nursing home and on a more balanced diet, her numbers fell.


That's a lovely story, but it does nothing to disprove that consumption
of animal fats contributes to elevated serum cholesterol levels.

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> In article >, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Why would you even say that? It is excess carbs that lead to high
>> cholesterol. That and genetics. I also don't think Steak Ums are
>> overly fatty but I'm not sure because I've never eaten one.
>
> there we have the typical bove pronouncement unbacked by any actual
> knowledge.

I can't comment on typical, but her statement is sound science, albeit
recent science that disagrees with the conventional wisdom of the last
50 years or so.

-S-

z z wrote:
> I found a crockpot recipe. Opened the box today and was not repelled
> by the frozen sheets-they actually look like an ironed sheet of raw
> hamburger frozen. Hope its good.
>
> There are many recipes out there, from using the sheets as a low carb
> sub for lasagne noodles to one enterprising cook who bakes or frys the
> sheets then rolls up stuffing inside, fills a pan with the rolls,
> covers with gravy, and bakes.
>
> In the crock it says a splash of olive oil, a box of steakums, a red
> or green pepper and a sweet onion chopped up, garlic salt or powder (i
> didnt have so i used minced garlic) and last a dash of worcestershire
> sauce or steak sauce. Cook on low 3-4hrs and then stir to break up. (I
> broke my frozen steakums into strips/fourths before starting.)
>
> I started late so I am doing high for 2hrs. Then spread mayo on your
> hard roll add a slice of provolone and a large glop of the
> steakums/pepper/onion mixture on top to melt the cheese. I dont have
> any provolone so it will be a sharp white cheddar instead-or maybe my
> pepper cheese havent decided.
>
> The air is already smelling delicious-I have high hopes this will be
> good.

I grew up in Philly and ate a lot of cheesesteaks. They carry steakums
in my local grocery store but I prefer a better grade of meat - well, I
prefer actual meat to a composite product. When I want to make my own
cheesesteak, I buy rare roast beef at the deli counter and use that
instead - it's not the same thing but it's close and it's better, IMHO.
Best would be some sort of very thinly sliced steak.

-S-

On 6/25/2012 1:04 PM, Steve Freides wrote:
> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>> In >, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why would you even say that? It is excess carbs that lead to high
>>> cholesterol. That and genetics. I also don't think Steak Ums are
>>> overly fatty but I'm not sure because I've never eaten one.
>>
>> there we have the typical bove pronouncement unbacked by any actual
>> knowledge.
>
> I can't comment on typical, but her statement is sound science, albeit
> recent science that disagrees with the conventional wisdom of the last
> 50 years or so.


It's correct that high carbohydrate intake and genetics contribute to
elevated cholesterol levels, but she completely dismisses the idea that
fat intake is also contributory. The new knowledge has modified the old,
not erased it.

Pennyaline wrote:
> On 6/25/2012 1:04 PM, Steve Freides wrote:
>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>> In >, "Julie Bove"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why would you even say that? It is excess carbs that lead to high
>>>> cholesterol. That and genetics. I also don't think Steak Ums are
>>>> overly fatty but I'm not sure because I've never eaten one.
>>>
>>> there we have the typical bove pronouncement unbacked by any actual
>>> knowledge.
>>
>> I can't comment on typical, but her statement is sound science,
>> albeit recent science that disagrees with the conventional wisdom of
>> the last 50 years or so.
>
>
> It's correct that high carbohydrate intake and genetics contribute to
> elevated cholesterol levels, but she completely dismisses the idea
> that fat intake is also contributory. The new knowledge has modified
> the old, not erased it.

The phrase "fat intake" is an oversimplification and ought not be part
of any conversation about cholesterol levels. 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.

-S-

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.




> 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.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:28:14 -0600 in rec.food.cooking, 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.

Because accuracy is important to medical scientists and practitioners!

That crockpot recipe turned out perfect. I found that I enjoyed the
steakums in combination with the miracle whip but not by themselves with
the onions/red peppers. Also, I ended up with leftovers and I definitely
was not ok with eating steakums reheated-so financially just cooking for
me I am better off buying the sliced deli beef-although it perturbs me
to not know the age of the hunk of beef they slice from. I think I would
like the steakums best as part of a stir fry. They smelled just like
beef cooking, but the tasted wasn't quite the same.

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.

-S-

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.

"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?

On 6/27/2012 12:01 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
> "Pennyaline" > wrote:

>> 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?



Really? Here's what you said in one comment in this thread (and that's
just this thread), please read all the way through to get your bit:


> Julie Bove
> Post reply
> More message actions
> Jun 25 (2 days ago)
>
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:38:39 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Why would you even say that? It is excess carbs that lead to high
>>>cholesterol.
>>
>> I bet the medical profession would like to hear from you. Go, set
>> them straight.
>
> I don't think I need to! All of the Drs. I have seen and that my MIL has
> seen do know this. MIL had horribly high cholesterol and it was discovered
> that the aids who were feeding her were giving her almost all carbs. Once
> she got into the nursing home and on a more balanced diet, her numbers fell.


You've made the "cholesterol numbers dependent only on carb intake and
genetics" pronouncement before, and you couldn't defend it then either.

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-

On 6/27/2012 8:56 AM, Steve Freides wrote:

> 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.

And as I see that you have no health sciences background at all, you are
a total fool to take seriously what she has said about carb intake and
genetics as the only causes of elevated serum cholesterol.



> 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.

You have yet to put forth any new information so, yes, I am utterly
uninterested in what you are calling the "evidence." Show me what's new
about your statements regarding fat intake and how that information
discredits what has been in common use for the last two decades, and
I'll reconsider.

In article >,
Pennyaline > wrote:


> You've made the "cholesterol numbers dependent only on carb intake and
> genetics" pronouncement before, and you couldn't defend it then either.

the fact is that julie can seldom defend any of her pronouncements

"Pennyaline" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/27/2012 12:01 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>> "Pennyaline" > wrote:
>
>>> 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?
>
>
>
> Really? Here's what you said in one comment in this thread (and that's
> just this thread), please read all the way through to get your bit:
>
>
>> Julie Bove Post reply
>> More message actions
>> Jun 25 (2 days ago)
>>
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:38:39 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why would you even say that? It is excess carbs that lead to high
>>>>cholesterol.
>>>
>>> I bet the medical profession would like to hear from you. Go, set
>>> them straight.
>>
>> I don't think I need to! All of the Drs. I have seen and that my MIL has
>> seen do know this. MIL had horribly high cholesterol and it was
>> discovered
>> that the aids who were feeding her were giving her almost all carbs.
>> Once
>> she got into the nursing home and on a more balanced diet, her numbers
>> fell.
>
>
> You've made the "cholesterol numbers dependent only on carb intake and
> genetics" pronouncement before, and you couldn't defend it then either.

For my MIL. I didn't say for all people.

In article >, "Julie Bove" >
wrote:


> >>> 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?
> >
> >
> >
> > Really? Here's what you said in one comment in this thread (and that's just
> > this thread), please read all the way through to get your bit:
> >
> >
> >> Julie Bove Post reply
> >> More message actions Jun 25 (2 days ago)
> >>
> >> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:38:39 -0700, "Julie Bove" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Why would you even say that? It is excess carbs that lead to high
> >>>>cholesterol.
> >>>

sure you did


> >>> I bet the medical profession would like to hear from you. Go, set them
> >>> straight.
> >>
> >> I don't think I need to! All of the Drs. I have seen and that my MIL has
> >> seen do know this. MIL had horribly high cholesterol and it was
> >> discovered that the aids who were feeding her were giving her almost all
> >> carbs. Once she got into the nursing home and on a more balanced diet, her
> >> numbers fell.
> >
> >
> > You've made the "cholesterol numbers dependent only on carb intake and
> > genetics" pronouncement before, and you couldn't defend it then either.
>
> For my MIL. I didn't say for all people.

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis
volutpat commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit
urna pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia
scelerisque ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed
est gravida ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi
egestas venenatis. Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta
lobortis ultricies. Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas
volutpat aliquet sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt
sed dolor. Nullam nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium
accumsan odio. Sed ut mi iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec
augue dui, in mattis urna. In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu
lorem sed odio porttitor blandit.

Trying to be some cool-kid, Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds wrote:
>
> --
>
> Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
> commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
> pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
> ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
> ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
> Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
> Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
> sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
> nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
> iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
> In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
> blandit. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis
> volutpat commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit
> urna pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia
> scelerisque ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed
> est gravida ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi
> egestas venenatis. Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta
> lobortis ultricies. Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas
> volutpat aliquet sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt
> sed dolor. Nullam nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium
> accumsan odio. Sed ut mi iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec
> augue dui, in mattis urna. In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu
> lorem sed odio porttitor blandit.

Please do us all a favor and get rid of that bullshit sig. jeez

G.

On 6/27/2012 4:22 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
> "Pennyaline" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 6/27/2012 12:01 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>> I don't think I need to! All of the Drs. I have seen and that my MIL has
>>> seen do know this. MIL had horribly high cholesterol and it was
>>> discovered
>>> that the aids who were feeding her were giving her almost all carbs.
>>> Once
>>> she got into the nursing home and on a more balanced diet, her numbers
>>> fell.
>>
>>
>> You've made the "cholesterol numbers dependent only on carb intake and
>> genetics" pronouncement before, and you couldn't defend it then either.
>
> For my MIL. I didn't say for all people.



Oh my god. I'm not sure what to think about that response. It's either
so desperate it's funny, or so stupid it's funny. Either way, it's funny.

You've made the same pronouncement before, and you weren't talking about
your mother in law at that time. But please, continue to flap away at
it, you crackpot.

In article >, Gary > wrote:

> Trying to be some cool-kid, Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds wrote:
> >
> > --
> >
> > Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis
> > volutpat commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit,
> > velit urna pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus
> > lacinia scelerisque ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam
> > sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus
> > non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis. Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod
> > feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies. Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque
> > vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet sagittis. Proin nisi magna,
> > molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam nisi erat, aliquet
> > scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi iaculis eros
> > rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna. In
> > pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
> > blandit. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras
> > lobortis volutpat commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing
> > suscipit, velit urna pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo.
> > Vivamus lacinia scelerisque ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam
> > sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus
> > non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis. Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod
> > feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies. Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque
> > vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet sagittis. Proin nisi magna,
> > molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam nisi erat, aliquet
> > scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi iaculis eros
> > rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna. In
> > pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
> > blandit.
>
> Please do us all a favor and get rid of that bullshit sig. jeez
>
> G.

whatever for?

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:50:16 -0600 in rec.food.cooking, Pennyaline
> wrote,
>Even the newest speculation about the actual benefits of HDL has not yet
>completely undone the "old" conviction.

Right. That doesn't happen until the "old" doctors die off.

On 6/29/2012 1:31 PM, David Harmon wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:50:16 -0600 in rec.food.cooking, Pennyaline
> > wrote,
>> Even the newest speculation about the actual benefits of HDL has not yet
>> completely undone the "old" conviction.
>
> Right. That doesn't happen until the "old" doctors die off.


No, doubt about HDL as the "good lipid" is recent and not completely
backed up. I'm not saying that it is or isn't good or bad, but I am
saying that the "new knowledge" is still speculative and hasn't replaced
the "old" by any means.

Coming to the party late I find that there are differing views over one
should eat beef, and how healthy it is or is not.

Is there some specific complaint with Steakums as a representative of
"eating beef" or has all of the back-and-forth been in the generic
about good health, high fat and other stuff like that?