Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Eggs and protein
Collapse
X
-
Long post, sorry
Originally posted by JuanchogespachoP.S. Cholesterol is an ALCOHOL, NOT a fat. www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm
Alcohol is anything with a hydroxyl (-OH) group as its ONLY functional group. Ethanol being the most famous. As far as that goes, fine, cholesterol does have a single -OH group. More important tho, notice the massive carbon structure its attached to. This being the base of a steriod. Steriods are all, without exception, a subgroup of lipids. Lipids are commenly known as fats and oils.
Cholesterol is a fat. Not an alcohol. Water has an -OH group in it. Few people would try to argue that water is an alcohol. Vinegar also has the -OH group. Doesnt make vinegar an alcohol.
Look at the one on the left. Thats cholesterol. Quite definitely a steroid. Look at the title.
Take care what you read online. Much is false, even more is a limited view of the truth. The confusion between cholesterol and alcohol is a sound example. Makes me suspicious of the many, many links offered. I am unlikely to read through them, many articles will be available contradicting them. Statistics prove exactly what you want them to, nothing else. So find an article written by a medical journal opposed to eating cholesterol, and find the more common view that lots of it is not good for you.
Bold type and capitals doesnt make what your saying look any more convincing. Just shows that you've mistaken opinion for fact and are angry about it.
"DIETARY INTAKE OF CHOLESTEROL HAS NO BEARING ON CHOLESTEROL LEVELS." is a fantastic, amazing quote. Your body wants a specific level of cholesterol to maintain cell membranes etc. So if there is to little, it synthesises it. If too much, it breaks it down as fast as it can. But theres limits. When too much is eaten continually, it cannot all be broken down and levels rise. Tends to result in deposits inside arteries and viens that will stay there unless diet changes or surgery is used. Straight logic there. Your body has limits. Dont exceed them and you'll be fine.
"That is the thing, it is NOT MY opinion it IS what the RESEARCH FOUND."
Does that really need a comment? It is very, very obviously your opinion. You may be basing it on a carefully selected range of research, but it is, nonetheless, your opinion.
I choose a link to look at. Since this one got quoted, i choose it. First i saw.
www.ravnskov.nu/myth1.htm This article started terribly. "However, the chemical term for a molecule such as cholesterol is alcohol, although it doesn't behave like alcohol."
Both false and illogical. If a compound does not behave like you have described it, youve got the name wrong. Chemistry is logical throughout. Alcohols are so named because their homolgous series contains similar structural features, and thus they show the same physical properties. A compound that does not behave like an alcohol is not an alcohol. In this case, it would be a steriod. One more quote from your linked article,
"a review of 70 studies Dr. Anne Dattilo and Dr. P.M. Kris-Etherton concluded that, on average, weight reduction lowers cholesterol by about 10 per cent, depending on the degree of the reduction."
Slight simpification of the numbers here. A presumably linear trend reduced to a single approximate value of 10. It states that any weight loss results in about a 10% cholesterol drop, but losing more weight loses more cholesterol. Think about that. What if you lost a little amount of weight. Still lose 10% cholesterol? Then lose another little bit? Now lost another 10%. This is why a linear trend is not stated as a single value. Because it doesnt hold true at any value other that the single point chosen. Im going to stop now before i get lost in statistics. No faith in that article whatsoever. At that point i stopped reading.
I once found an apparently sincere physics article about using electricity to create gravitation fields. Looked very good on the surface, but if you pay enough attention to it flaws appear. At a guess, most of the articles linked to involved taking some legitemate research and corrupting it, ignoring aspects and altering others, until it superficially supported the statements made.
In my opinion, you have been both too angry and too easily led by what youve found online.
Put even simpler, in my opinion you dont know what your talking about
Rant over. Self-rightous infliction of ignorence annoys me. Wel done to anyone who bothered to read this far, and wasnt put off by the diagram.
Peace
Comment
-
PERSONAL ATTACKS ARE A SURE SIGN OF SOMEONE WHO IS FULL OF THE STICKY SMELLY BROWN STUFF.
STICK TO THE FACTS
GIVE ME ONE TIGHTLY CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL THAT SUPPORTS THE CHOLESTEROL THEORY
GIVE ME ONE, JUST ONE, IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK? ACTUALLY IT IS, BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE!!!
[B]THIS IS A FACT , regardless if YOU like it or not.
P.S. DR UFFE RAVNSKOV IS A PhD in CHEMISTRY.
ATHEROSCLEROTIC PLAQUES ARE NOT NOT NOT WADS OF FAT INSIDE OF YOUR ARTERTY YOU FOOL. THEY ARE FIBEROUS SCAR TISSUE, CALCIUM DEPOSITS , SMOOTH MUSCLE CELLS FOUND IN DISCREET LESIONS , NOT UNIFORMLY !
READ UP AND LEARN
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS NO CLUE. READ UP AND READ THIS CAREFULLY
NO RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL HAS EVER, EVER SHOWN ANY REDUCTION IN CHD MORTALITY THAT CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO SATURATED FAT RESTRICTION OR CHOLESTEROL LOWERING.
P.S. MEDICAL JOURNALS ARE WHAT THIS IS BASED ON. SPECIFICALLY THE 27 CLINICAL TRIALS THAT DO NOT SUPPORT ( all that have ever been done) THE CHOLESTEROL THEORY/NONSENSE
LOOK THEM UP AND READ ALL 27 IN FULL TEXT.
YOU HAVE NOT EVEN BEGUN TO DELVE INTO THE WHOLE ANT-SATURATE , ANTI-CHOLESTEROL PARADIGM, LIKE THE OMNIVORE HAS OR DR. UFFE RAVNSKOV.
THIS IS SCIENCE, NOT POLITICS, REMEMBER JUST ONE, THE OMNIVORE WILL SHUT HIS SITE DOWN IF YOU CAN PRODUCE EVEN ONE. .
Comment
-
Are you even AWARE who started the cholesterol nonsense AS PERTAINS TO OMNIVOROUS HUMANS? It was Ancel Keys, fool.
and even Ancel Keys admits DIETARY CHOLESTEROL AND SATURATED FAT HAVE NO BEARING ON CHOLESTEROL LEVEL.
Ancel Keys, THE FOUNDER OF THE NONSENSE , even admits this
READ CAREFULLY, You obviously didn't in the other links.
DIETARY CHOLESTEROL AND SATURATED FATS HAVE NO BEARING ON CHOLESTEROL LEVEL
Sceintists have known this for a looong time, but the fact that he even admits this is a 50% slaying of the Cholesterol Theory RIGHT THERE!
I recommend you e-mail the Omnivore with your "knowledge" he would tear you a new posterior opening with FACTS
Comment
-
How shall i put this. I was party annoyed by the bold and caps lock. Very annoyed by you thinking cholesterol is an alcohol when it blatently isnt.
I genuinely do not care about the cholesterol theory. Basic application of limiting factors makes it clear that eating kilo's of cholesterol is going to put more of it in your blood. Very few things in biology are independent. Excessive cholesterol intake and rise in cholesterol levels in blood cannot be independent of one another. The body is not efficienct enough to make it so.
DR UFFE RAVNSKOV IS A PhD in CHEMISTRY.
He 'has' a PhD in chemistry, surely? Chemistry and biochemistry not the same. But more importanty, articles based on experiment almost invariably show exactly what the sponsers wanted them to show. Politics is everywhere. Piss off your sponsers too much, lose funding, lose funding available for other research.
Have you done any of this research yourself? I choose one page largely at random and laughed at how emotionally it was written. Clearly designed more to influence than to inform. And rightly so. It was on the internet after all. I am not going to go and read through 27 full accounts of something im frankly not interested in. Would be surprised if you have read them all really.
Do you have any original input to add here? So far you have many links to other peoples work, at least one of which looks spectacularly unreliable. This is surrounded by a foolish formating idea, which as far as i can tell only detracts from the sincerity of your post.
Ill let you in on a new idea shall I? Facts are subjective. Scientific facts even more so. If you dont understand this statement say so and i shall clarify it for you.
p.s. was 'DR UFFE RAVNSKOV IS A PhD in CHEMISTRY' the one who claimed steriods are alcohols? If he holds a PhD in (presumably organic) chemistry he would know this, and would therefore only have said it with the intention of misleading. Something i believe the entire artcile was designed to do. Convince people that he is right and all other views false. Good for a debate, not so good for a scientific writeup.
You tell me to read the masses of text you bow to. Ill make a suggestion. Find articles opposing your current viewpoint, read through them, then see if your current ideas seem quite so concrete.
Lose the bold type and you'll get a far more mature argument from me, including me spending time on research. Otherwise there's a tendency to react to the immaturity displayed by your formating in similar fashion. Your choice.
Steriods are still lipids.
Peace
Comment
-
That's the POINT. CLINICAL TRIALS ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT COUNT. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THEM. The only evidence the AHA has is selectively cited EPEDIMIOLOGICAL STUDIES. and MISQUOTATIONS OF THE NON SUPPORTIVE FINDINGS OF LONG TERM CLINICAL TRIALS LIKE THIS ONE www.ravnskov.nu/myth8.htm AND NOT LONG TERM RANDOMIZED DOUBLE BLIND CLINICAL TRIALS WHICH ARE THE GOLD STANDARD OF RESEARCH
CHOLESTEROL IS MOST DEFINITELY NOT A FAT.
saturated fat and cholesterol are entirely chemically UNRELATED FACT
P.S. I am the one and ONLY RAZWELL THAT IS WHY I TYPE IN CAPS
Comment
-
Originally posted by JuanchogespachoCHOLESTEROL IS MOST DEFINITELY NOT A FAT.
saturated fat and cholesterol are entirely chemically UNRELATED FACT
P.S. I am the one and ONLY RAZWELL THAT IS WHY I TYPE IN CAPS
I didnt claim cholesterol was a saturated fat at any point. It isnt. Its a steriod. Which would be a lipid. Which is a fat. Saturated fats are long chains of carbons with no C=C bonding and as much hydrogen as they can hold. A steriod is based around a 4 ring structure. Nothing like each othere\.
Cholesterol is a fat. Google found a website that put this very clearly on the first search.
First paragraph:
In animal tissues, cholesterol (cholest-5-en-3β-ol) is by far the most abundant member of a family of polycyclic compounds known as sterols. It can also be described as a polyisoprenoid. The great French chemist Chevreul was the first to isolate it from gallstones and characterize it as a single compound as long ago as 1815 [1]. Cholesterol has an important role in membranes and in lipid metabolism in general, so is a lipid by any definition, although I do not believe that all compounds that are soluble in organic solvents need be considered as lipids (see my definition). The steroidal hormones, derived biosynthetically from cholesterol, are not lipids in the sense of my definition, and are not discussed further here.
If thats not convincing enough, by all means say so and ill go find other pages saying the same thing. Can even scan in a page from my biochem textbook if that would help
Not all lipids are saturated fats. This is obvious. Unsaturates fats are still lipids for a start. Lipids covers an enormous range of organic chemicals, including cholesterol as one of the more minor ones. ' a lipid by any definition'
Going to admit you were wrong?
As far as junk science goes... Tred carefully friend. Flauting ignorence is not a wise move. What is science in your eyes? What background have you got to justify your arrogance in claiming the theory is so? Still at school or looking back 20 years or so to O levels in science?
A theory is just that, a theory. This one was put forward by one more intelligent and more experienced than either of us. How dare you write it off as junk?
Failing to understand even the first step of biochem (actually getting names right) makes me suspect you have no authority on the subject whatsoever.
Comment
-
Cholesterol is NOT really a fat at all, IN FACT IT'S A PEARLY-COLOURED , WAXY, SOLID ALCOHOL THAT IS SOAPY TO THE TOUCH
IT'S UNIQUE waxy soapy consitency provides the cell membranes with their structual integrity
YOU were wrong, FOOL
READ UP AND LEARN YOU BRAINWASHED DOLT. YOU ARE THE VICTIM OF MEDIA/AHA PROPOGANDA
As far as the Cholesterol Theory goes THEORIES NEED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM, FOOL, CLINICAL EVIDENCE.
WELL GUESS WHAT????????? THE CHOLESTEROL THEORY HAS NONE
18 CLINICAL TRIALS, DR. UFFE RAVNSKOV, THE 70 WORLD RENOWNED SCIENTISTS FROM THINCS AND THE OMNIVORE POINT THIS OUT, NOT ME, FOOL
RANDOMIZED , DOUBLE BLIND, TIGHTLY CONTROLLED, LONG TERM CLINICAL TRIALS ARE THE GOLD STANDARD OF RESEARCH AND NONE OF THESE TYPES OF TRIALS ( THE 18 CLINICAL TRIALS, ALL THAT HAVE BEEN DONE TO DATE) , NONE SUPPORT THE CHOLESTEROL THEORY. THE AHA HAS NONE. THAT IS WHY IT'S JUNK
NOW NO MORE COMMENTS FROM YOUR UNEDUCTATED PUTRID BUTTOCKS UNTIL YOU'VE READ ALL 18 CLINICAL TRIALS IN FULL TEXT . YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY E-MAIL DR RAVNSKOV OR THE OMNIVORE THEN.
Comment
Comment