Re: "You on a diet"

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:31:28 -0400, Sean <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Hollywood said:

Quoted message said:

On Dec 5 2006, 6:13 am, "Hollywood" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

> Sat Fat isn't a killer if you nix
> the carbs.

Quoted message said:

Saturated fat reduces the ability of the good cholesterol to remove
the bad cholesterol from the bloodstream. So eating a lot of it can
result in heart attack or stroke. My doctor calls it a "poison".

Quoted message said:

Sean

Thanks for your timely reply.

That was because I stumbled across your post while searching google
groups for something else. This time the wait is due to the fact that
I waited until I had my new cholesterol test results to tell you.

Quoted message said:

That said, I have been eating a lot of sat fat (about 40G per day for
the past 5.5 months), and have DRAMATICALLY lowered my LDL-C "bad
cholesterol" while maintaining a good number for HDL-C "good
cholesterol". Like 70+ points of LDL in about three and a half months.
Oddly, no stroke, no heart attack, and My Doctor, who believed what

I had a physician's assistant tell me that the heart attack or stroke
comes after years of high cholesterol levels. A blood clot could still
bring it on even if your cholesterol is low.

Quoted message said:

your doctor believed, and was talking liver destroying statin drugs to
lower my cholesterol, has changed his tune.

Additionally, you might want to check out "The Cholesterol Con" and
while you're at it, buy your doc a copy.

I think that an inherent distrust of people can lead to a belief that
there is a conspiracy by doctors to keep their patients from being
healthy. I believe that my doctors truly want what is best for me but
more than that, I believe in science. I also suspect that the advice
in my Anatomy Physiology textbook and the knowledge that my doctors
learned in medical school is based on multiple studies published in
peer-reviewed journals, which is the gold standard of science.

Oh god -- peer reviewed work in journals. We could go on for days about
these.

Quoted message said:

The book you mention is just one book, probably published by one
author, in a sea of a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. You
do yourself a disservice to believe in it.

Actually, he's a free thinking individual who happened upon something that
made him change his mind. You? A lemming.

Quoted message said:

That said, I've been walking for an hour and a half a day and keeping
my dietary saturated fat down to about 20% of the U.S. recommended
daily allowance for the last three months. I just had my cholesterol
tested and it is down 34%. The total cholesterol went from 248 to 163,
well within healthy limits ( <200). My LDL cholesterol went from 159
to 88, also well within healthy limits ( <160). My triglycerides are
way down, as well. All without eating very much saturated fat and
while eating a diet high in unrefined carbohydrates. I've lost weight
on this diet.

I've heard that the spectacular losses made on a low carb diet are due
to the body loosing water due to the lack of carbohydrates. After the
initial loss the rate of loss goes down to the amount of energy out -
energy in, adjusting for how fast the metabolism is (really part of
energy out). You can keep your metabolism higher by eating small meals
every three hours and by not eating refined carbohydrates. My Anatomy
Physiology book calls low-carb dieting "unwise".

Quoted message said:

If you don't want a heart attack, eat fat and don't smoke.

I agree with the don't smoke part. I am glad that your cholesterol
went down, but are you sure that there isn't something that your not
telling us that would explain why?

Quoted message said:

-Hollywood
265/225/210

Good job.

Sean

193/170/140

To further your knowledge, perhaps you could peruse this:

A study indicating that an increase in "good" cholesterol RAISED heart
attack risk

http://members.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0416/054.html

I don't have time to list the many other studies that indicate that
lowering LDL does nothing for heart disease. Just because you and many
doctors believe this to be true doesn't make it true. Another good book is
http://www.newtrendspublishing.com/Ravnskov/index.html

--
Bob in CT

Sean said:

I also suspect that the advice
in my Anatomy Physiology textbook

oh my
--
After four months and being an American in Taipei I never want to hear
´Oh your koala very cute¡ ever again. If there is an off chance that if
I do encounter a koala, I may have to punch it in the face as a result.
Even a pretty koala looks ugly with a broken nose.

Bob in CT wrote:
:: On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:31:28 -0400, Sean
:: <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
::: On Feb 3, 7:55 am, "Hollywood" <[email hidden]> wrote:
:::: On Feb 2, 5:38 pm, [email hidden] wrote:
::::
::::: On Dec 5 2006, 6:13 am, "Hollywood" <[email hidden]> wrote:
::::
:::::: Sat Fat isn't a killer if you nix
:::::: the carbs.
::::
::::: Saturated fat reduces the ability of the good cholesterol to
::::: remove the bad cholesterol from the bloodstream. So eating a lot
::::: of it can result in heart attack or stroke. My doctor calls it a
::::: "poison".
::::
::::: Sean
::::
:::: Thanks for your timely reply.
:::
::: That was because I stumbled across your post while searching google
::: groups for something else. This time the wait is due to the fact
::: that I waited until I had my new cholesterol test results to tell
::: you.
:::
:::: That said, I have been eating a lot of sat fat (about 40G per day
:::: for the past 5.5 months), and have DRAMATICALLY lowered my LDL-C
:::: "bad cholesterol" while maintaining a good number for HDL-C "good
:::: cholesterol". Like 70+ points of LDL in about three and a half
:::: months. Oddly, no stroke, no heart attack, and My Doctor, who
:::: believed what
:::
::: I had a physician's assistant tell me that the heart attack or
::: stroke comes after years of high cholesterol levels. A blood clot
::: could still bring it on even if your cholesterol is low.
:::
:::: your doctor believed, and was talking liver destroying statin
:::: drugs to lower my cholesterol, has changed his tune.
::::
:::: Additionally, you might want to check out "The Cholesterol Con" and
:::: while you're at it, buy your doc a copy.
:::
::: I think that an inherent distrust of people can lead to a belief
::: that there is a conspiracy by doctors to keep their patients from
::: being healthy. I believe that my doctors truly want what is best
::: for me but more than that, I believe in science. I also suspect
::: that the advice in my Anatomy Physiology textbook and the knowledge
::: that my doctors learned in medical school is based on multiple
::: studies published in peer-reviewed journals, which is the gold
::: standard of science.
::
:: Oh god -- peer reviewed work in journals. We could go on for days
:: about these.
::
::: The book you mention is just one book, probably published by one
::: author, in a sea of a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. You
::: do yourself a disservice to believe in it.
::
:: Actually, he's a free thinking individual who happened upon
:: something that made him change his mind. You? A lemming.
::
::: That said, I've been walking for an hour and a half a day and
::: keeping my dietary saturated fat down to about 20% of the U.S.
::: recommended daily allowance for the last three months. I just had
::: my cholesterol tested and it is down 34%. The total cholesterol
::: went from 248 to 163, well within healthy limits ( <200). My LDL
::: cholesterol went from 159 to 88, also well within healthy limits (
::: <160). My triglycerides are way down, as well. All without eating
::: very much saturated fat and while eating a diet high in unrefined
::: carbohydrates. I've lost weight on this diet.
:::
::: I've heard that the spectacular losses made on a low carb diet are
::: due to the body loosing water due to the lack of carbohydrates.
::: After the initial loss the rate of loss goes down to the amount of
::: energy out - energy in, adjusting for how fast the metabolism is
::: (really part of energy out). You can keep your metabolism higher by
::: eating small meals every three hours and by not eating refined
::: carbohydrates. My Anatomy Physiology book calls low-carb dieting
::: "unwise".
:::
:::: If you don't want a heart attack, eat fat and don't smoke.
:::
::: I agree with the don't smoke part. I am glad that your cholesterol
::: went down, but are you sure that there isn't something that your not
::: telling us that would explain why?
:::
:::: -Hollywood
:::: 265/225/210
:::
::: Good job.
:::
::: Sean
:::
::: 193/170/140
:::
::
:: To further your knowledge, perhaps you could peruse this:
::
:: A study indicating that an increase in "good" cholesterol RAISED
:: heart attack risk
::
:: http://members.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0416/054.html
::
:: I don't have time to list the many other studies that indicate that
:: lowering LDL does nothing for heart disease. Just because you and
:: many doctors believe this to be true doesn't make it true. Another
:: good book is http://www.newtrendspublishing.com/Ravnskov/index.html
::
:: --
:: Bob in CT

It's so amazing how people can go on talking about how they believe in
"science" without understanding anything about it, let alone displaying any
ability whatsoever to think independently.

"I believe in what my doctors and science tell me to believe and I don't
need to think."

Lemming, indeed.

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:08:46 -0400, Roger Zoul <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bob in CT wrote:
:: On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:31:28 -0400, Sean
:: <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
::: On Feb 3, 7:55 am, "Hollywood" <[email hidden]> wrote:
:::: On Feb 2, 5:38 pm, [email hidden] wrote:
::::
::::: On Dec 5 2006, 6:13 am, "Hollywood" <[email hidden]> wrote:
::::
:::::: Sat Fat isn't a killer if you nix
:::::: the carbs.
::::
::::: Saturated fat reduces the ability of the good cholesterol to
::::: remove the bad cholesterol from the bloodstream. So eating a lot
::::: of it can result in heart attack or stroke. My doctor calls it a
::::: "poison".
::::
::::: Sean
::::
:::: Thanks for your timely reply.
:::
::: That was because I stumbled across your post while searching google
::: groups for something else. This time the wait is due to the fact
::: that I waited until I had my new cholesterol test results to tell
::: you.
:::
:::: That said, I have been eating a lot of sat fat (about 40G per day
:::: for the past 5.5 months), and have DRAMATICALLY lowered my LDL-C
:::: "bad cholesterol" while maintaining a good number for HDL-C "good
:::: cholesterol". Like 70+ points of LDL in about three and a half
:::: months. Oddly, no stroke, no heart attack, and My Doctor, who
:::: believed what
:::
::: I had a physician's assistant tell me that the heart attack or
::: stroke comes after years of high cholesterol levels. A blood clot
::: could still bring it on even if your cholesterol is low.
:::
:::: your doctor believed, and was talking liver destroying statin
:::: drugs to lower my cholesterol, has changed his tune.
::::
:::: Additionally, you might want to check out "The Cholesterol Con" and
:::: while you're at it, buy your doc a copy.
:::
::: I think that an inherent distrust of people can lead to a belief
::: that there is a conspiracy by doctors to keep their patients from
::: being healthy. I believe that my doctors truly want what is best
::: for me but more than that, I believe in science. I also suspect
::: that the advice in my Anatomy Physiology textbook and the knowledge
::: that my doctors learned in medical school is based on multiple
::: studies published in peer-reviewed journals, which is the gold
::: standard of science.
::
:: Oh god -- peer reviewed work in journals. We could go on for days
:: about these.
::
::: The book you mention is just one book, probably published by one
::: author, in a sea of a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. You
::: do yourself a disservice to believe in it.
::
:: Actually, he's a free thinking individual who happened upon
:: something that made him change his mind. You? A lemming.
::
::: That said, I've been walking for an hour and a half a day and
::: keeping my dietary saturated fat down to about 20% of the U.S.
::: recommended daily allowance for the last three months. I just had
::: my cholesterol tested and it is down 34%. The total cholesterol
::: went from 248 to 163, well within healthy limits ( <200). My LDL
::: cholesterol went from 159 to 88, also well within healthy limits (
::: <160). My triglycerides are way down, as well. All without eating
::: very much saturated fat and while eating a diet high in unrefined
::: carbohydrates. I've lost weight on this diet.
:::
::: I've heard that the spectacular losses made on a low carb diet are
::: due to the body loosing water due to the lack of carbohydrates.
::: After the initial loss the rate of loss goes down to the amount of
::: energy out - energy in, adjusting for how fast the metabolism is
::: (really part of energy out). You can keep your metabolism higher by
::: eating small meals every three hours and by not eating refined
::: carbohydrates. My Anatomy Physiology book calls low-carb dieting
::: "unwise".
:::
:::: If you don't want a heart attack, eat fat and don't smoke.
:::
::: I agree with the don't smoke part. I am glad that your cholesterol
::: went down, but are you sure that there isn't something that your not
::: telling us that would explain why?
:::
:::: -Hollywood
:::: 265/225/210
:::
::: Good job.
:::
::: Sean
:::
::: 193/170/140
:::
::
:: To further your knowledge, perhaps you could peruse this:
::
:: A study indicating that an increase in "good" cholesterol RAISED
:: heart attack risk
::
:: http://members.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0416/054.html
::
:: I don't have time to list the many other studies that indicate that
:: lowering LDL does nothing for heart disease. Just because you and
:: many doctors believe this to be true doesn't make it true. Another
:: good book is http://www.newtrendspublishing.com/Ravnskov/index.html
::
:: --
:: Bob in CT

It's so amazing how people can go on talking about how they believe in
"science" without understanding anything about it, let alone displaying
any
ability whatsoever to think independently.

"I believe in what my doctors and science tell me to believe and I don't
need to think."

Lemming, indeed.

Well, I used to believe in doctors, too, but if we listened to doctors,
we'd all be on low fat. My own inability to reconcile how good I felt
when I started low carbing, relative to how everyone said that I "needed"
carbs for "energy" and how I "needed" a low fat diet to be healthy, lead
to the downfall of my beliefs and a search for real answers. After all, I
was eating basically no carbs, yet woke up one day and felt fantastic.
Why? I mean, how could that happen, when it went against what basically
all media and all doctors said was the correct diet? I mean, I "had" to
eat grains, right? Steak was the epitome of all evil, wasn't it? All I
had to do was continue to woof down rice cakes and brown rice, beans, and
oats, and I'd hit nutritional nirvana. Sadly, all I hit was a
skyrocketing blood glucose level and horrible blood sugar control. I was
at one time every bit the lemming and just as delusional as the original
poster. Because of my experience with low carb, which flew in the face of
traditional teachings, I just decided to go out and do my own research in
order to control my own health. I still am unsure as to what the "real"
diet should be, but I have reached the conclusion that saturated fat isn't
the evil its portrayed to be. Similarly, the distinction between "good"
cholesterol and "bad" cholesterol is either completely wrong or a gross
misconception as to what really causes heart disease. The mantra to eat
more polyunsaturate fat is, I believe, questionable or entirely wrong. I
do believe that eating more whole fruits and vegetables is good, and I'm
trying to do so.

Anyway, those are my thoughts for now, and I have to get back to work! ;-)

--
Bob in CT

Sean said:

Hollywood said:

On Feb 2, 5:38 pm, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Dec 5 2006, 6:13 am, "Hollywood" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Sat Fat isn't a killer if you nix
> the carbs.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Saturated fat reduces the ability of the good cholesterol to remove
the bad cholesterol from the bloodstream. So eating a lot of it can
result in heart attack or stroke. My doctor calls it a "poison".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sean

Quoted message said:

Thanks for your timely reply.

That was because I stumbled across your post while searching google
groups for something else. This time the wait is due to the fact that
I waited until I had my new cholesterol test results to tell you.

Sorry I missed this. Changing the title tends to lose the thread.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That said, I have been eating a lot of sat fat (about 40G per day for
the past 5.5 months), and have DRAMATICALLY lowered my LDL-C "bad
cholesterol" while maintaining a good number for HDL-C "good
cholesterol". Like 70+ points of LDL in about three and a half months.
Oddly, no stroke, no heart attack, and My Doctor, who believed what

I had a physician's assistant tell me that the heart attack or stroke
comes after years of high cholesterol levels. A blood clot could still
bring it on even if your cholesterol is low.

This is a fatalist's argument. Since I may have had high cholesterol
since I was 22 until I was 34, I should not bother to make changes.
Really, it depends on how plaque filled your gear is. I can't say.
But, if I worry about this all the time, I probably won't leave the
house.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

your doctor believed, and was talking liver destroying statin drugs to
lower my cholesterol, has changed his tune.

Quoted message said:

Additionally, you might want to check out "The Cholesterol Con" and
while you're at it, buy your doc a copy.

I think that an inherent distrust of people can lead to a belief that
there is a conspiracy by doctors to keep their patients from being
healthy. I believe that my doctors truly want what is best for me but
more than that, I believe in science. I also suspect that the advice
in my Anatomy Physiology textbook and the knowledge that my doctors
learned in medical school is based on multiple studies published in
peer-reviewed journals, which is the gold standard of science.

So, the idea behind the Cholesterol Con is this:
Where did this idea that high cholesterol is bad come from?
I think the Framingham study is the first one to provide a link
between sat fat, high cholesterol and heart unhealthy folks. But, what
if they miffed their read on the data, a bunch of people cite their
read, not their data, and now, it's an idee fixe. The facts of the
matter is, it's not a what if. It's a what happened. At least that's
my understanding.

But, on peer review, med school, etc: What if it's all wrong? Is this
possible? Why is it that 50% of the people with heart attacks and
strokes have normal cholesterol? Why is it that people with low
cholesterol have increased mortality? If those two facts don't make
you wonder what they don't know, I dunno what to say to you.

Quoted message said:

The book you mention is just one book, probably published by one
author, in a sea of a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. You
do yourself a disservice to believe in it.

So, I'm willing to look at a lot and suggest that the consensus might
be wrong.

In point of fact, it was a good friend, who also happened to be a new
grad from USC Med School, who pointed me to Low Carb. She still fully
endorses it several years down the line.

Quoted message said:

That said, I've been walking for an hour and a half a day and keeping
my dietary saturated fat down to about 20% of the U.S. recommended
daily allowance for the last three months. I just had my cholesterol
tested and it is down 34%. The total cholesterol went from 248 to 163,
well within healthy limits ( <200). My LDL cholesterol went from 159
to 88, also well within healthy limits ( <160). My triglycerides are
way down, as well. All without eating very much saturated fat and
while eating a diet high in unrefined carbohydrates. I've lost weight
on this diet.

Congrats:
Here are my numbers, with time frames of testing:
8/20/06 - 295 tot / 221 LDL / 59 HDL / 75 TriG (this was the day I
started PPLP)
10/8/6 - 232 / 167 / 55 / 52 (this is 7 weeks later)
11/26/6 - 211 / 145 / 56 / 51 (diet start + 14 weeks)
Total changes: -84 / -76 / -3 / -24
Doc decided he didn't need to see anymore. I project that now, diet
week 34, I'm under 200.
Nutrient breakdown:
Fat: ~50%: Lotta sat & mono fats. Little bit of poly sat. Meat is good
Carb: ~5%
Protein: ~45%

Quoted message said:

I've heard that the spectacular losses made on a low carb diet are due
to the body loosing water due to the lack of carbohydrates. After the
initial loss the rate of loss goes down to the amount of energy out -
energy in, adjusting for how fast the metabolism is (really part of
energy out). You can keep your metabolism higher by eating small meals
every three hours and by not eating refined carbohydrates. My Anatomy
Physiology book calls low-carb dieting "unwise".

I'm sure you are not suggesting that I have lost 53 lbs of water,
right? I've heard this before, but it doesn't happen.

In fairness, I work out. Of course, this is mandatory on Atkins (there
is a chapter titled: Exercise: It's not Negotiable.) It's also very
strongly recommended on Protein Power Life Plan, which I do.

In extra fairness: I eat 4-6 times a day. Again, it's not a
competition, but why wouldn't I maximize my edge? I'm goal focused, so
why not pick the best tools to get to goal.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you don't want a heart attack, eat fat and don't smoke.

I agree with the don't smoke part. I am glad that your cholesterol
went down, but are you sure that there isn't something that your not
telling us that would explain why?

See above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

-Hollywood
265/225/210

Good job.

Sean

193/170/140

Nice work
265/211/205

Roger Zoul said:

"I believe in what my doctors and science tell me to believe and I
don't need to think."

I love this quote I just found yesterday:

The most valuable truths are the ones most people don't believe.
They're like undervalued stocks. If you start with them, you'll have
the whole field to yourself. So when you find an idea you know is
good but most people disagree with, you should not merely ignore
their objections, but push aggressively in that direction.

-- Paul Graham, <http://paulgraham.com/notnot.html>

--
Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

"If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
zebras."

Hollywood said:

On Apr 19, 5:31 pm, Sean <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Sorry I missed this. Changing the title tends to lose the thread.

I'm not using a newsreader, so there was no way to save the message
until I had the test results, and Google Groups wouldn't let me reply
to your post since it had been so long.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I had a physician's assistant tell me that the heart attack or stroke
comes after years of high cholesterol levels. A blood clot could still
bring it on even if your cholesterol is low.

This is a fatalist's argument. Since I may have had high cholesterol
since I was 22 until I was 34, I should not bother to make changes.
Really, it depends on how plaque filled your gear is. I can't say.
But, if I worry about this all the time, I probably won't leave the
house.

I think it's good to know the risk, because if I do have a heart
attack or stroke, I'll call 911 right away rather than hoping that
isn't the cause and waiting.

Quoted message said:

So, the idea behind the Cholesterol Con is this:
Where did this idea that high cholesterol is bad come from?
I think the Framingham study is the first one to provide a link
between sat fat, high cholesterol and heart unhealthy folks. But, what
if they miffed their read on the data, a bunch of people cite their
read, not their data, and now, it's an idee fixe. The facts of the
matter is, it's not a what if. It's a what happened. At least that's
my understanding.

But, on peer review, med school, etc: What if it's all wrong? Is this
possible? Why is it that 50% of the people with heart attacks and
strokes have normal cholesterol? Why is it that people with low

Because of the blood clots.

Quoted message said:

cholesterol have increased mortality? If those two facts don't make
you wonder what they don't know, I dunno what to say to you.

I am able to wrap my head around the idea that medical beliefs can be
wrong and will be disproven in the future. Even this particular one.
But since I'm just a layman I do the lemming maneuver and trust what
the professionals have to say. I'm certainly not worried that my
cholesterol is too low, since I believe that in the primordial
environment man had to walk a lot to collect food, walking lowers
cholesterol, and evolution has made us fit to survive.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The book you mention is just one book, probably published by one
author, in a sea of a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. You
do yourself a disservice to believe in it.

So, I'm willing to look at a lot and suggest that the consensus might
be wrong.

Yeah.

Quoted message said:

Congrats:
Here are my numbers, with time frames of testing:
8/20/06 - 295 tot / 221 LDL / 59 HDL / 75 TriG (this was the day I
started PPLP)
10/8/6 - 232 / 167 / 55 / 52 (this is 7 weeks later)
11/26/6 - 211 / 145 / 56 / 51 (diet start + 14 weeks)
Total changes: -84 / -76 / -3 / -24
Doc decided he didn't need to see anymore. I project that now, diet
week 34, I'm under 200.

The reason why I don't agree with you on that point is that my doctor
told me it takes three months to tell what result a change in diet and/
or exercise makes on cholesterol. So I suspect that the numbers have
stayed close to the same between diet start + 14 weeks and now.
Provided you haven't changed anything since week 14.

Quoted message said:

Nutrient breakdown:
Fat: ~50%: Lotta sat & mono fats. Little bit of poly sat. Meat is good
Carb: ~5%
Protein: ~45%

[Lemming alert] I've heard that a diet low in fat is associated with a
lower risk of cancer. Also, red meat is associated with colon cancer
(it can make you bleed from there, too).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've heard that the spectacular losses made on a low carb diet are due
to the body loosing water due to the lack of carbohydrates. After the
initial loss the rate of loss goes down to the amount of energy out -
energy in, adjusting for how fast the metabolism is (really part of
energy out). You can keep your metabolism higher by eating small meals
every three hours and by not eating refined carbohydrates. My Anatomy
Physiology book calls low-carb dieting "unwise".

I'm sure you are not suggesting that I have lost 53 lbs of water,
right? I've heard this before, but it doesn't happen.

Oh no! Just the first few days or the first week's worth of weight
loss.

Quoted message said:

In fairness, I work out. Of course, this is mandatory on Atkins (there
is a chapter titled: Exercise: It's not Negotiable.) It's also very
strongly recommended on Protein Power Life Plan, which I do.

My doctor says that exercise helps to regenerate neurons, so you'll
stay smarter if you do it.

Quoted message said:

In extra fairness: I eat 4-6 times a day. Again, it's not a
competition, but why wouldn't I maximize my edge? I'm goal focused, so
why not pick the best tools to get to goal.

Good. I don't think that affects cholesterol.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you don't want a heart attack, eat fat and don't smoke.

Quoted message said:

I agree with the don't smoke part. I am glad that your cholesterol
went down, but are you sure that there isn't something that your not
telling us that would explain why?

See above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

-Hollywood
265/225/210

Quoted message said:

Good job.

Quoted message said:

Sean

Quoted message said:

193/170/140

Nice work
265/211/205

You're almost there 🙂

Sean, who does understand science, since he took 3 years of it in high
school

Sean said:

I think it's good to know the risk, because if I do have a heart
attack or stroke, I'll call 911 right away rather than hoping that
isn't the cause and waiting.

Youth, ain't they grand?
--
After four months and being an American in Taipei I never want to hear
´Oh your koala very cute¡ ever again. If there is an off chance that if
I do encounter a koala, I may have to punch it in the face as a result.
Even a pretty koala looks ugly with a broken nose.

Aaron Baugher wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> writes:
::
::: "I believe in what my doctors and science tell me to believe and I
::: don't need to think."
::
:: I love this quote I just found yesterday:
::
:: The most valuable truths are the ones most people don't believe.
:: They're like undervalued stocks. If you start with them, you'll have
:: the whole field to yourself. So when you find an idea you know is
:: good but most people disagree with, you should not merely ignore
:: their objections, but push aggressively in that direction.
::
:: -- Paul Graham, http://paulgraham.com/notnot.html
::

Very good. Thanks for posting this.

Sean said:

Hollywood said:

On Apr 19, 5:31 pm, Sean <[email hidden]> wrote:
Sorry I missed this. Changing the title tends to lose the thread.

I'm not using a newsreader, so there was no way to save the message
until I had the test results, and Google Groups wouldn't let me reply
to your post since it had been so long.

No problem.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I had a physician's assistant tell me that the heart attack or stroke
comes after years of high cholesterol levels. A blood clot could still
bring it on even if your cholesterol is low.

Quoted message said:

This is a fatalist's argument. Since I may have had high cholesterol
since I was 22 until I was 34, I should not bother to make changes.
Really, it depends on how plaque filled your gear is. I can't say.
But, if I worry about this all the time, I probably won't leave the
house.

I think it's good to know the risk, because if I do have a heart
attack or stroke, I'll call 911 right away rather than hoping that
isn't the cause and waiting.

Yeah, but I object to the "You're boned anyway" kind of mentality that
this brings on. The key thing is the level of plaque. If they have a
cheap test for this, I would look into it. But I'm not particularly
worried.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, the idea behind the Cholesterol Con is this:
Where did this idea that high cholesterol is bad come from?
I think the Framingham study is the first one to provide a link
between sat fat, high cholesterol and heart unhealthy folks. But, what
if they miffed their read on the data, a bunch of people cite their
read, not their data, and now, it's an idee fixe. The facts of the
matter is, it's not a what if. It's a what happened. At least that's
my understanding.

Quoted message said:

But, on peer review, med school, etc: What if it's all wrong? Is this
possible? Why is it that 50% of the people with heart attacks and
strokes have normal cholesterol? Why is it that people with low

Because of the blood clots.

Again, how do you assess risk for this? If cholesterol isn't the risk
(50% of the time, people with heart attacks have normal or low
cholesterol, so that's probably not it), then what is? And why obsess
over sat fat if the problem with sat fat is higher cholesterol numbers
(higher HDL numbers, btw)? It just doesn't add.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cholesterol have increased mortality? If those two facts don't make
you wonder what they don't know, I dunno what to say to you.

I am able to wrap my head around the idea that medical beliefs can be
wrong and will be disproven in the future. Even this particular one.
But since I'm just a layman I do the lemming maneuver and trust what
the professionals have to say. I'm certainly not worried that my
cholesterol is too low, since I believe that in the primordial
environment man had to walk a lot to collect food, walking lowers
cholesterol, and evolution has made us fit to survive.

So, I'm a layperson, but I took more than a few courses about how to
conduct research. Not from a medical perspective, but from a business,
economics, and political economics perspective. The stats are the
same, though the study subjects are different. Lemming move is good
for some. Lemme suggest that the stakes are too high to accept someone
else's opinion blindly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The book you mention is just one book, probably published by one
author, in a sea of a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. You
do yourself a disservice to believe in it.

Quoted message said:

So, I'm willing to look at a lot and suggest that the consensus might
be wrong.

Yeah.

Quoted message said:

Congrats:
Here are my numbers, with time frames of testing:
8/20/06 - 295 tot / 221 LDL / 59 HDL / 75 TriG (this was the day I
started PPLP)
10/8/6 - 232 / 167 / 55 / 52 (this is 7 weeks later)
11/26/6 - 211 / 145 / 56 / 51 (diet start + 14 weeks)
Total changes: -84 / -76 / -3 / -24
Doc decided he didn't need to see anymore. I project that now, diet
week 34, I'm under 200.

The reason why I don't agree with you on that point is that my doctor
told me it takes three months to tell what result a change in diet and/
or exercise makes on cholesterol. So I suspect that the numbers have
stayed close to the same between diet start + 14 weeks and now.
Provided you haven't changed anything since week 14.

That's junk science though. I just showed you a change in 7 weeks that
is substantial. I wasn't working out yet in October. Some walking, but
nothing with lifting. It might be imprudent to want to recheck in less
than 3 months (you might not see the full changes or even the extent
of the direction of change), but you can see TriG numbers move in as
little as 3 weeks. And PP doctors Eades suggest 6 weeks as a
reasonable interval. Dr. Atkins suggested 6-8. And my doc was willing
to take it at 7 and 7. So, your doc has one idea, others have other
ideas. Since I can show you a <3 month change from diet and exercise,
your doc's opinion is contrary to my observation. Unless of course
your doct suggests 3 months because he feels it's the safe amount of
time to see a difference, not the minimum. I suspect this is the case.
It is different from what you said though.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nutrient breakdown:
Fat: ~50%: Lotta sat & mono fats. Little bit of poly sat. Meat is good
Carb: ~5%
Protein: ~45%

[Lemming alert] I've heard that a diet low in fat is associated with a
lower risk of cancer. Also, red meat is associated with colon cancer
(it can make you bleed from there, too).

I've heard that fiber is really bad for your intestines. I've also
heard that a diet low in fat is associated with gall stones and other
gall bladder dysfunctions. So, you takes your risks whatever you do.
Personally, I'll let you know if I wind up with bloody [censored] (none yet
in a lifetime of red meat eat) and no colon cancer, yet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've heard that the spectacular losses made on a low carb diet are due
to the body loosing water due to the lack of carbohydrates. After the
initial loss the rate of loss goes down to the amount of energy out -
energy in, adjusting for how fast the metabolism is (really part of
energy out). You can keep your metabolism higher by eating small meals
every three hours and by not eating refined carbohydrates. My Anatomy
Physiology book calls low-carb dieting "unwise".

Quoted message said:

I'm sure you are not suggesting that I have lost 53 lbs of water,
right? I've heard this before, but it doesn't happen.

Oh no! Just the first few days or the first week's worth of weight
loss.

So, the first ten-15 lebs, water, sure. I'll count that. But it's been
more than the first few weeks at this point. Measured by various body
fat calculators, I've lost most of the weight from fat, very little
from lean body mass. Very cool.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In fairness, I work out. Of course, this is mandatory on Atkins (there
is a chapter titled: Exercise: It's not Negotiable.) It's also very
strongly recommended on Protein Power Life Plan, which I do.

My doctor says that exercise helps to regenerate neurons, so you'll
stay smarter if you do it.

Quoted message said:

In extra fairness: I eat 4-6 times a day. Again, it's not a
competition, but why wouldn't I maximize my edge? I'm goal focused, so
why not pick the best tools to get to goal.

Good. I don't think that affects cholesterol.

Lifting supposedly helps your cholesterol. Running, not so much.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> If you don't want a heart attack, eat fat and don't smoke.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I agree with the don't smoke part. I am glad that your cholesterol
went down, but are you sure that there isn't something that your not
telling us that would explain why?

Quoted message said:

See above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> -Hollywood
> 265/225/210

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Good job.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sean

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

193/170/140

Quoted message said:

Nice work
265/211/205

You're almost there 🙂

Sean, who does understand science, since he took 3 years of it in high
school

Actually, the 205 is a second goal. I already made my first one, which
was to get to 19% bf and reassess. So, I'm there and I'm moving
forward. But thanks.

Wow. I'm not even gonna talk to the science courses.

Good luck with your program. You're 1/2 way there.

Hollywood said:

On Apr 20, 6:42 pm, Sean <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In extra fairness: I eat 4-6 times a day. Again, it's not a
competition, but why wouldn't I maximize my edge? I'm goal focused, so
why not pick the best tools to get to goal.

Quoted message said:

Good. I don't think that affects cholesterol.

Lifting supposedly helps your cholesterol. Running, not so much.

I'd be remiss if I didn't say that my doctor told me that using the
leg muscles is the thing that generates HDL cholesterol, which brings
down the LDL cholesterol. I reason that I think that he's right is
that my cholesterol went down after I changed two things: I went from
1/2 hour of walking a day to 1 1/2 hours, and I started eating whole
grains. I don't think the whole grains had anything to do with the
change in cholesterol, I'm just including that to be complete.

You know, to be completely honest, I think Doc said "using the long
muscles of the body" instead of "leg muscles", but I just can't
remember.

Sean

Sean said:

Hollywood said:

Sean said:

> In extra fairness: I eat 4-6 times a day. Again, it's not a
> competition, but why wouldn't I maximize my edge? I'm goal focused, so
> why not pick the best tools to get to goal.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Good. I don't think that affects cholesterol.

Quoted message said:

Lifting supposedly helps your cholesterol. Running, not so much.

I'd be remiss if I didn't say that my doctor told me that using the
leg muscles is the thing that generates HDL cholesterol, which brings
down the LDL cholesterol. I reason that I think that he's right is
that my cholesterol went down after I changed two things: I went from
1/2 hour of walking a day to 1 1/2 hours, and I started eating whole
grains. I don't think the whole grains had anything to do with the
change in cholesterol, I'm just including that to be complete.

You know, to be completely honest, I think Doc said "using the long
muscles of the body" instead of "leg muscles", but I just can't
remember.

I had a link the other day about red meat and cancer, how there's no
real link according to some scientists in Australia (who were probably
funded by the Australian Beef Ranchers Association ;-). At any rate,
it's in this month's Men's Health, in the nutrition research roundup
towards the front.

Men's Health, btw, is very slowly dumping the Mediterranean diet in
favor of a lower carb approach. They are still married to the ABS DIET
POWER foods, which are Med Diet, but the revised Testosterone
Advantage Plan that's coming out later this year is gonna be more
strictly LC than 33% carbs like the first TAP (7 years ago). Since
they are voracious research readers and adapters, the gradual shift
away from fat phobia to carb reduction has been pretty amazing. Don't
get me wrong, they are not Protein Power (although Mary Dan Eades
contributed to a breakfast column last month), but they are gradually
moving in that direction. The new TAP plan is likely gonna look a lot
like PP with more detailed workout advice.

That said, congrats on your numbers and, as with everything, there is
no ONE TRUE method. Somethings work for some, others for others, and
there are some base rules.

Personally, I wouldn't do slow cardio, but I was walking 5-6 miles per
day for a period in my weight loss. I was losing slowly. Then I
switched from tracking my steps to doing High Intensity Intervals and
the weight starting falling off again. Slow now, so it's time to tweak
some things.

Rock on Sean.