John Coleman wrote:
>>Her statement was fair. Dairy can be a beneficial part of one's diet, and
> so can
>>eggs.
>
> Please support this claim with evidence.

http://www.healthandage.com/Home/gid2=1871

> Animal products contain cholesterol
> which is bad for humans

No, it isn't. Our own bodies produce cholesterol. Serum cholesterol is
marginally affected by dietary cholesterol; seafood, especially oily cold-water
fish, are high in cholesterol and help elevate HDL (good cholesterol) which in
turn helps lower LDL (bad cholesterol). Consumption of saturated fats (from both
plant and animal sources) is linked to elevated serum cholesterol levels.

> as we are metabolic herbivores.

Please support your own claim with evidence.

> Animal products are
> also inherently allergenic,

Ipse dixit. Please support your own claim with evidence.

> even in tiny amounts because they are "foreign"
> proteins.

No, they are not. The basic building block of proteins are amino acids. The
peptides (amino groups) found in meat are not "foreign" to our bodies. Our
physiology is sufficient to digest and make use of meat proteins.

>>veg-ns can have is that their diet is automatically "better" in
> nutritional
>>value (much less the ****ed up ethical notions they perpetrate) than
> another.
>
> true
>
>>in our culture, is an historical novelty. Our bodies, though, carry the
> wisdom
>>of natural selection. Our ancestors ate meat and dairy and eggs; they
> didn't
>>suffer iron, zinc, or B12 deficiencies at the rates found in vegans.
>
> Maybe true,

No, definitely true.

> but they did suffer from atherosclerosis and arthritis, and
> rarely live beyond 60.

Early diseases were far greater causes of death. People died earlier from
infections, diarrhea, cholera, etc., and cardiovascular diseases were far less
prevalent.

<...>

> http://www.healthandage.com/Home/gid2=1871

A link to some crappy nutritional propaganda?

> No, it isn't.

That is not the consensus of opinion.

> Our own bodies produce cholesterol.

So what, that does not infer you need to add to it.

> Serum cholesterol is
> marginally affected by dietary cholesterol;

It's a margin the wrong way.

> seafood, especially oily cold-water
> fish, are high in cholesterol and help elevate HDL (good cholesterol)
which in
> turn helps lower LDL (bad cholesterol).

I don't eat any dead animals. My TC is a shade over 2, what's yours?

> Consumption of saturated fats (from both
> plant and animal sources) is linked to elevated serum cholesterol levels.

Do oily cold water fish contain saturated fat? How much saturated fat does
the average piece of fruit contain?

> Please support your own claim with evidence.

Page 280 Harpers Biochemistry 24 Ed, a medical students text - "The rabbit,
pig , monkey, and humans are species in which atherosclerosis can be induced
by feeding cholesterol. The rat, dog and cat are resistant."

Now read this post:

"This is interesting:

Primary hyperoxaluria type 1 (PH1) is a recessive disease in which an
enzyme,
alanine:glyoxylate aminotransferase (AGT), is mistargetted from the
peroxisomes
where it functions in the glyoxylate pathway, to the mitochondia (1) where
it is
inefficient. It can be caused by defects in at least 2
glyoxylate-metabolizing
enzymes and leads to excessive urine oxalate excretion resulting in kidney
stones and/or calcification of the kidney which can occur in childhood or
adolescence. Patients used to die on average at age 36 (2), however vitamin
B12
therapy and dietary changes can help to increase lifespan in certain forms
of
the disorder.

"One molecular adaptation to diet that is spread widely across Mammalia is
the
differential intracellular targeting of the intermediary metabolic enzyme
alanine:glyoxylate aminotransferase (AGT), which tends to be mitochondrial
in
carnivores, peroxisomal in herbivores, and both mitochondrial and
peroxisomal in
omnivores." (3)

As we have seen, normal humans express the AGT gene effectively in their
peroxisomes, but when AGT is targetted to the mitchondria such as in the PH1
mutation, it cannot operate effectively. I therefore conclude that humans
evolved through the herbivorous lineage, having evolved peroxisomes,
but not mitochondria, adapted to effective glyoxylate metabolism.

Thanks to Danpure and associates for this useful research, and my friend
Laurie
for sharing it.

John Coleman
---

1) J Nephrol. 1998 Mar-Apr;11 Suppl 1:8-12. The molecular basis of alanine:
glyoxylate aminotransferase mistargeting: the most common single cause of
primary hyperoxaluria type 1. Danpure CJ.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

2) Primary Hyperoxalurias
http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/mayo/re...eroxaluria.cfm

3) Mol. Biol. Evol. 21(4):632-646. 2004. Differential Enzyme Targeting As an
Evolutionary Adaptation to Herbivory in Carnivora. Birdsey GM, Lewin J,
Cunningham AA, Bruford MW and Danpure CJ.
http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/4/632?ct"

> Ipse dixit. Please support your own claim with evidence.

When they give folk tissue transplants, they have to take meds to reduce the
immune system reaction. Common knowledge.

> No, they are not.

Yes they are!

> The basic building block of proteins are amino acids.

People eat _protein_ not amino acids, 100% of the protein does not end up as
amino acids in your stomach. Some survives into the colon where it is
reduced to various bad smelling toxins, some just goes right through your
gut wall into your circulation and innevitably triggers your immune system
for panic you can avoid.

> peptides (amino groups) found in meat are not "foreign" to our bodies. Our
> physiology is sufficient to digest and make use of meat proteins.

Dream on. Undigested meat fragments can be recovered from human urine
sediments for sequencing. Sure you can digest some of it, but that doesn't
make it a good idea.

> >>of natural selection. Our ancestors ate meat and dairy and eggs; they
> > didn't
> >>suffer iron, zinc, or B12 deficiencies at the rates found in vegans.
> >
> > Maybe true,
>
> No, definitely true.

And the evidence over millions of years is? Okay, I accept modern vegan
populations have some issues sometimes. These can be addressed with
introducing a variety of plant foods and a supplement.

> Early diseases were far greater causes of death. People died earlier from
> infections, diarrhea, cholera, etc., and cardiovascular diseases were far
less
> prevalent.

So not a very persuasive argument in terms of health.

Here is another post (about Otzi), the Neolithic corpse who had
atherosclerosis and arthirits, needless to say he was not vegan. But he was
lucky, an arrow killed him before the bad diet:

"There was a very good TV program about Otzi on last week, and they were
talking
about his last meal (as described), as well as how they think he was killed
(by
an arrow). Clearly the hair analysis researchers need to take stock of this
new
evidence. Given that the ice men wore furs, it was surprising to see them
touted
as vegetarians, but that was the best evidence available at the time.

Looks like someone got their sums or assumptions wrong, or maybe the
analysis
was faulty?

This may upset the Paleolithic and Pottenger fanatics, but Otzi was a
typical
sick meat eater:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/inicetran.shtml

"NARRATOR:
The Iceman's health has been a big question since the beginning and he has
regularly been taken out of his fridge for tests. The X-rays revealed a
surprisingly modern complaint.

DIETER ZUR NEDDEN (GERMAN WITH SUBTITLES):
We have found massive calcification in the aorta area of the stomach. We
found
massive calcification in the brain's blood supply. I believe this was caused
by
fat deposits in the walls of the blood vessels which led to calcification.
This
was the result of a metabolic disease like high cholesterol. "

So even if the arrow had not killed him, his diet would have."


John C

the malnourished John Coleman wrote:
>>http://www.healthandage.com/Home/gid2=1871
>
> A link to some crappy nutritional propaganda?

As opposed to your posts and/or your failed medical tests?

>>No, it isn't.
>
> That is not the consensus of opinion.

Actually, it is.
http://www.enc-online.org/dietc.htm

>>Our own bodies produce cholesterol.
>
> So what, that does not infer you need to add to it.

That's not the issue you raised, dummy. You said that dietary intake of
cholesterol raises serum cholesterol. I've already noted in earlier replies to
you that seafood is often recommended for those with hypercholesterolemia. Fish
is high in cholesterol, yet it helps elevate HDL -- the good cholesterol. What
raises LDL (the bad cholesterol) is saturated fat. See link above, and I can
cite many more studies if you need them.

>>Serum cholesterol is
>>marginally affected by dietary cholesterol;
>
> It's a margin the wrong way.

Ipse dixit.

Ginsberg et al. 1994. A dose-response study of the effects of dietary
cholesterol on fasting and postprandial lipid and lipoprotein metabolism
in healthy young men. Arterioscler. Thrombosis 14:576-586.

For these controlled feeding studies twenty-four young men were fed 30%
fat diets (NCEP Step I) with addition of zero (128 mg cholesterol/day),
one (283 mg/day), two (468 mg/day) or four (858 mg/day) eggs per day to
the basal diet. Each diet was fed for eight weeks. Average plasma
cholesterol levels in the twenty-four subjects were 155, 161, 162, and
166 mg/dl for the zero, one, two and four eggs per day feeding periods.
Plasma total cholesterol increased 1.5 mg/dl per 100 mg/day added
dietary cholesterol. There was no evidence that changes in dietary
cholesterol intakes altered the postprandial plasma lipoprotein profile
(lipoproteins thought to be involved in the development of
atherosclerosis) and thus did not alter the atherogenic potential of the
plasma lipoproteins. The data indicate that in the majority of healthy
young men addition of two eggs per day to a low-fat diet has little
effect on plasma cholesterol levels.

>>seafood, especially oily cold-water
>>fish, are high in cholesterol and help elevate HDL (good cholesterol)
> which in
>>turn helps lower LDL (bad cholesterol).
>
> I don't eat any dead animals. My TC is a shade over 2, what's yours?

TC = Total Cholesterol?

>>Consumption of saturated fats (from both
>>plant and animal sources) is linked to elevated serum cholesterol levels.
>
> Do oily cold water fish contain saturated fat?

Some, but not very much. Raw salmon, per 100g:
Total saturated fat Gms : 0.981
Ttl monounsaturated fat Gms : 2.103
Ttl polyunsaturated fat Gms : 2.539

It gets ~40% of calories from fat. It also helps elevate HDL.

> How much saturated fat does
> the average piece of fruit contain?

Avocados, olives? Some. Sweet fruits? None.

>>Please support your own claim with evidence.
>
> Page 280 Harpers Biochemistry 24 Ed, a medical students text - "The rabbit,
> pig , monkey, and humans are species in which atherosclerosis can be induced
> by feeding cholesterol. The rat, dog and cat are resistant."

Not exactly:
Severe atherosclerotic lesions with clinical significance rarely appear
in the heart, brain, and kidney even in a dog involved with *systemic
atherosclerosis*. Immunohistochemical distribution of apolipoprotein in
the peripheral arteries has been rarely detected in dogs. No reports
have indicated whether aging is a factor in the occurrence of lesions in
dog. However, routine histopathologic examinations of the dog, with or
without hyperlipidemia and *systemic atherosclerosis*, frequently reveal
the accumulation of lipids and hyaline materials in the central and
penicillar arteries of the spleen, occasionally associated with
hemorrhage and infarction.
http://www.vetpathology.org/cgi/content/full/38/4/407

See also: http://snipurl.com/5yyp

<...>

> That's not the issue you raised, dummy. You said that dietary intake of
> cholesterol raises serum cholesterol.

Rubbish, I said "Please support this claim with evidence. Animal products
contain cholesterol
which is bad for humans as we are metabolic herbivores. Animal products are
also inherently allergenic, even in tiny amounts because they are "foreign"
proteins."

You sir are an offensive liar.

John C

the whiny and grossly malnourished John Coleman wrote:
>>That's not the issue you raised, dummy. You said that dietary intake of
>>cholesterol raises serum cholesterol.
>
> Rubbish, I said "Please support this claim with evidence. Animal products
> contain cholesterol
> which is bad for humans

Prove it.

> as we are metabolic herbivores.

Prove it.

> Animal products are
> also inherently allergenic,

Prove it.

> even in tiny amounts because they are "foreign"
> proteins."

Prove it.

> You sir are an offensive liar.

No, arsehole, you are. I have disabused each of your points above.

> No, it isn't. Our own bodies produce cholesterol. Serum cholesterol is
> marginally affected by dietary cholesterol; seafood, especially oily
cold-water
> fish, are high in cholesterol and help elevate HDL (good cholesterol)
which in
> turn helps lower LDL (bad cholesterol). Consumption of saturated fats
(from both
> plant and animal sources) is linked to elevated serum cholesterol levels.

dietary cholesterol is still harmful even though it may only elevate LDL
slightly, it has a big pro-oxidative effect:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2000/000404.htm

John C

the misguided and malnourished John Coleman wrote:
<...>
> dietary cholesterol is still harmful even though it may only elevate LDL
> slightly, it has a big pro-oxidative effect:

You don't have good comprehension, do you? It's also a goalpost move: you
claimed that eating food high in cholesterol increased serum cholesterol. The
study you cite below started with people with moderaltely elevated LDL and they
consumed double the recommended allowance of cholesterol. Oxidation was highest
(TWICE as high) in the corn oil-fed group as in the beef tallow group.

> http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2000/000404.htm
<...>

Now what was your point in relation to what I originally wrote, dummy? Let me
refresh your memory:
Serum cholesterol is marginally affected by dietary cholesterol;
seafood, especially oily cold-water fish, are high in cholesterol and
help elevate HDL (good cholesterol) which in turn helps lower LDL (bad
cholesterol). Consumption of saturated fats (from both plant and animal
sources) is linked to elevated serum cholesterol levels.

From a page on cholesterol management:
There are three kinds of fats in foods: saturated, polyunsaturated and
monounsaturated fats. Only saturated fatty acids can raise your blood
cholesterol.
http://www.mssm.edu/cvi/cholesterol.shtml

Fish, an important source of the polyunsaturated fat known as omega-3,
has received much attention in the past for its potential to lower heart
disease risk. And there have been some studies to back this up, although not
all have shown consistent benefits. One recent large trial, however, found that
by getting 1 gram per day of omega-3 fatty acids over a 3.5
year period, patients who had previous suffered heart attacks could
lower their risk of dying from heart disease by 25 percent. (To get that
amount of omega-3 fatty acids would require the equivalent of 1 daily
serving of fatty fish, such as mackerel, salmon, sardines, or
swordfish.) Although more research is needed, adding fish to the diet
may help protect you from heart disease, and it doesn't have any known
risks. The American Heart Association currently recommends that everyone
eat at least two servings of fish a week.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html

BTW, that same 100g of raw wild salmon I mentioned in another post has:
Cholesterol Mg : 55.000

That's almost 20% of the USRDA for cholesterol. Wow.

See also:
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09319.html

And these two, just to **** you off:
http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~meatsc...anredmeat.html
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever...ins.paleo.html

> You don't have good comprehension, do you? It's also a goalpost move: you
> claimed that eating food high in cholesterol increased serum cholesterol.

I made no such claim, you just pulled that out of your head yourself, go
back and read the original post.

> consumed double the recommended allowance of cholesterol. Oxidation was
highest
> (TWICE as high) in the corn oil-fed group as in the beef tallow group.

I'll make this easy - In what way does this research not support my
contention that dietary cholesterol is bad for you? If dietary cholesterol
isn't bad for humans then why have a limit on it - why even bother about it?

Why isn't cholesterol bad for cats and dogs, but is for humans and other
herbivores?

John C

the malnourished prat John Coleman wrote:
>>You don't have good comprehension, do you? It's also a goalpost move: you
>>claimed that eating food high in cholesterol increased serum cholesterol.
>
> I made no such claim,

Liar.

> you just pulled that out of your head yourself, go
> back and read the original post.

I did.

>>consumed double the recommended allowance of cholesterol. Oxidation was
> highest
>>(TWICE as high) in the corn oil-fed group as in the beef tallow group.
>
> I'll make this easy -

That's the only way a malnourished prat like you could comprehend it anyway: simple.

> In what way does this research not support my
> contention that dietary cholesterol is bad for you?

For starters, the people already had moderately high cholesterol. It was raised
slightly for the study. The highest oxidation levels were observed in the group
fed corn oil -- TWICE as much oxidation as those eating beef tallow. Your point
doesn't stand, nitwit.

> If dietary cholesterol
> isn't bad for humans then why have a limit on it - why even bother about it?

Dietary cholesterol is only an issue for those with hypercholesterolemia, which
most often occurs because of endogenous cholesterol (over)production rather than
dietary intake.

> Why isn't cholesterol bad for cats and dogs, but is for humans

It isn't "bad" for humans except those who have hypercholesterolemia due to
endogenous issues. A diet high in saturated fats will also cause elevated LDL,
which is "bad."

> and other herbivores?

Humans are not herbivores, we're omnivores. As to the answer of your entire
bogus question, we have some physiological differences between cats and dogs
(which are closer to being full carnivores than we are).