"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" wrote:
>
> >>Or perhaps cholesterol is secondary to the real cause.
>
> I can understand people with coronary artery disease and doctors
> wanting to
> "Believe" controlling cholesterol is the key. It is very common for
> people
> in general to want to believe that they can "control" things. It is
> very
> difficult for people and doctors to admit that they do not understand
> the
> disease process and there may be NOTHING they can do and that they do
> not
> have control - at least with the present understanding. <<
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Look, damnit. You can give a rabbit or a monkey terrible
> atherosclerosis, which they ordinarily do not get, by feeding them
> NOTHING more than added choesterol to their control diet (on which they
> do not get atherosclerosis, either). This was discovered in rabbits
> almost a century ago. Fed cholesterol is the ONLY variable in these
> experiments. And it can cause honest-to-god full-on
> can't-tell-the-difference-from-the-human-kind of atheroslcerosis. All
> by itself, witih nothing else. Period.
>
> Now, do you GET it? That doesn't mean cholesterol is the only variable
> in the human process or even the main one. But we know it CAN be causal
> *all by itself* of this disease, in animals. That means that it's
> extremely unlikely not to be partly causal in humans (whether it
> originates from the diet or the liver isn't important once its in the
> blood), given the close correlation between disease and blood
> cholesterol levels, the known pathogenesis of the disease which
> involves macrophages filling up with cholesterol from the blood, and
> finally the (duh) obvious facts that atheromatous plaques are filled
> with cholesterol goo like the stuff inside of a creampuff.
>
> The animal evidence that cholesterol is partly a causal factor in
> atherosclerosis is actually better than the animal experimental
> evidence that smoking is partly causal in lung cancer. If you really to
> be perverse, why not attack the smoking lung cancer theory first?
>
> SBH

Aside for your language, would concur with your comments.

At His service,

Andrew

--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2F325D1A
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Wysong *~ wrote:

> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> "Roger Zoul" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> ::
>> :: Ime, calorie counting is not useful in helping people eat less to
>> :: lose weight.
>>
>> So, if true, calorie counting should not lead to weight loss, right?
>
> ## He may be right since so few people STOP eating when they run out of
> calories (or points for WW followers) for the day. If everyone could stick
> to say 1100 or 1200 c. a day there would be little obesity.

For lunch today, I had two cupcakes, a little Batman fruit snacks, and a
soda. estimated calories runs... let's see, that's 150-200 for the soda,
50 for the sugared vitamin c. count in about 600 for the cupcakes. That
leaves me with about 850 for my lunch.

I tend to eat small things (not appetite suppressants) for lunch. I just
deal.

If you calculate how muchfood value is in a pot of chili (fairly easy...
believe it or not), you can just divide among the number of servings to
get a calorie content.

I regularly eat brunches that have around a thousand calories in them. I
don't eat again till dinner, and then have something light.

Lena

Hi,
On 10-Feb-2005, "aem" > wrote:

> Fifo wrote:
> > This is an interesting discussion between obviously knowledgeable
> > individuals that the rest of us can't really follow since everyone
> but Dr. Chung is using relies to author. Is it possible to reply to
> > the group please.
>
> Better yet, let those interested go to the appropriate medical and
> fantasy (i.e., diet) groups, and stop cross-posting this to
> rec.food.cooking.

Andrew Chung in sci.med.cardiology added the other groups. It's a bad
habit with him, although the cooking group is a new target as far as I
know. He usually hits the diet groups. The OP addressed it to
sci.med.cardiology and sci.med only.

Take care,
Carmen from ASDLC
--
Please note change in Reply To address carmensrt <at> gmail <dot> com
Hotmail isn't working and is being abandoned