Alternative to coffee

[laislica]

 

 

Don't worry about coffee, there is no known connection between coffee and cholesterol.
Take care of the fatty stuff you are eating instead

 
WOW!!!!!
 
It´d really scary to read a post like this but thanks for reminding me that we -
the people of the world have been lied to and brainwashed about cholesterol for more than 60 yeras.
You could not be more wrong and you are not to blame for believing what you posted.
The big companies spend milliond of $$ and use the best brains to ensure that we believe their lies.
 
It´s those lovely (and addictive) carbohydrates that are converted into cholesterol by your body.
Consumption of the "Good" Fats and oils actually suppress the secretion of insulin.
Carbohydrates create the secretion of insulin.
If you had high blood sugar your body secretes insulin and turns that excess blood sugar into Cholesterol.
Da Da.
 
Watch Cereal Killers don´t fear fat
or read Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes
or why we get fat and what to do about it by G T
or Get fit, lose weight and feel great the easy way By Dr John..
or any of the more up to date sources and see how we are being hoodwinked.
 
Good luck if you choose to dig a little deeper to find the truth.

 

Or just read a textbook and find out what rubbish this is. Any book on metabolism for first year med students will do, the syllabus that doctors are taught, available in any bookshop.  There you would read that carbohydrates are converted into every biochemical compound in the body, including proteins, triglycerides and even DNA.

 

That in terms of mass, the overwhelming majority of the excess carbohydrate calories that you consume are turned into triglycerides, not cholesterol. Hint: fat cells are 95% triglyceride.

 

That secretion of insulin is an essential and integral part of eating. If you did not secrete insulin you would die.
Hint: Type 1 diabetes is an inability to secrete insulin. The inability to secrete insulin is a serious life-threatening disease.
 
Consulting the scientific literature (you know, how scientists communicate their results to each other and the medical community. Hint : they do not do this by writing books) would show you that nearly every study done has shown that coffee consumption has a small but consistent elevating effect on plasma cholesterol. Is this a significant health risk? Probably not.
 
This one ( a statistical summary of 14 separate trials of the effect of coffee on plasma cholesterol levels combined) is free so you can read it: 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11207153
American Journal of Epidemiology. 2001 Feb 15;153(4):353-62.

Coffee consumption and serum lipids: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials.

Jee SH(1), He J, Appel LJ, Whelton PK, Suh I, Klag MJ. Department of Epidemiology and Disease Control, Yonsei University Graduate School of Health Science and Management, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Coffee drinking has been associated with increased serum cholesterol levels in some, but not all, studies.  A Medline search of the English-language literature published prior to December 1998, a bibliography review, and consultations with experts were performed to identify 14 published trials of coffee consumption.  [...]A dose-response relation between coffee consumption and both total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol was identified (p < 0.01). [...] Consumption of unfiltered, but not filtered, coffee increases serum levels of total and LDL cholesterol.

 

 

Thank you Partington, I feel that you are agreeing that the major source of blood fats (triglycerides and cholesterol) are carbohydrates.

After all the OP was concerned about coffee elevating his cholesterol.

You rather nicely explained "There you would read that carbohydrates are converted into every biochemical compound in the body, including proteins, triglycerides and even DNA."

I agree with you that the elevated levels of cholesterol due to coffee are probably not a serious problem.

In coffee the caffeine might be another story though, not to mention the several hundred other compounds, some of which are very beneficial.

 

I wanted only to point out that the thing to watch out for is the consumption of carbohydrates rather than fat.

I didn´t want to prove the point with a deeply technical and accurate dissertation.

 

The point of my post was a reply to the quote.

Fat in moderation does not make you fat.

Carbs do so much more easily and due to their addictive nature are harder to regulate intake.

Especially when hidden in liquids and almost all processed foods.

 

Insulin is a regulator of blood sugar I do agree and if there were no insulin then a diabetic coma would be the last event before death, unless diagnosed and treated.

Hint type 1 diabetes is a result of continual elevated levels of insulin due to continually high blood sugar (probably caused by carbohydrates?)

The pancreas is exhausted and can´t make insulin any more.

Fat is slow to digest and does not cause blood sugar spikes generally, like carbs do.

A spin round the glycemic index will show this.

At this point, should I perhaps list all the different types of sugar that are available, give their names and chemical bonding, sweetness etc and describe how fructose and alcohol are only processed by the liver. The chemistry for this is very complicated, but might be interesting? or would that overwhelm the meaning of the post?

Sometimes, it may be better to just get "the ball over the net", so to speak, rather than risk losing the point to too much technical accuracy?

 

And I do know how scientists communicate - they do as they are told to by their pay masters.

When an experiment does not come out the way they expected, they will often repeat the experiment but change the criteria, or ignore certain sets of data until they are able to publish what they want to say, and it is a truth but - really!

 

I can, as a scientist, make a study of studies.

I can then, carefully select the studies to study, all perfectly above board and done all the time.

Will the conclusions of my study be the "Truth", or "My Truth"?

And yes, it does matter!

The study of studies done by Keys omitted any data that did not agree with his hypothesis that fat people are greedy and lazy.

 

Read the books by GT and watch the videos and see what I mean.

I understand why you do.

I don´t blame you, as I posted, the best brains are being well paid to ensure that everyone is sucked into the lies.

 

You know, once upon a time it was a crime to suggest that the world was not flat!

What Was The Spanish Inquisition All About - A Truth - but what truth?

 

What was the name of the man who lived with the Inuit´s for a year and ate fat and NO veg for a year and didn´t get sick?

He was pilloried by the scientists of the day and called a liar.

Didn´t he have to commit himself to Bellevue Hospital for half a year, eat the same diet and prove that he was correct?

To be fair the scientists did publish the truth in this case but it not something that "respectable people" want to be associated with.

It flies too far in the face of popular beliefs.

 

I suppose that we should not mention the scientist who suggested that the MMR was a major factor in Autism etc..

I mean, just who does one believe in this most corrupt of worlds?

Is big business backed by phony science?

According to documentaries that I have watched Hitler certainly was. There's a series running on Spanish TV at the moment.

So,
Anecdotal evidence'

What a which doctor tells us?
The media?
 

Do you have time to explain the role of triglycerides in the production of cholesterol.

You may turn to documents like this:-

Cholesterol and Triglycerides
What You Should Know
Michael T. McDermott MD
Professor of Medicine
Endocrinology Practice Director
Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Diabetes
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
Denver, Colorado 80262
Phone: 720.848.2650
You can read this PDF here:-
http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/medicalschool/departments/medicine/EndocrinologyMetabolismDiabetes/clinical/Documents/Lipid_Brochure.pdf

Interestingly, there is no date on the document.
But even this document does not (IMO) adequately deal with VLDL and other components of cholesterol.
It does not show that the large balloon like LDL molecules are not harmful at all and therefore, good as this old document is, it stops short. It does not include the latest discoveries and is somewhat misleading because of that omission.
It´s those tinv, very dense LDL molecules that are small enough to get under the epithelial cells in the lining of the arteries.
So if Both HDL and LDL increase, it is important to know how the LDL components are made up in order to decide if it is actually a good or a bad thing.

This is nicely explained in Cereal Killers, don´t fear fat. 

 

Don´t you just love it when bottled water shouts loudly that it does not contain Glutine, well you know what I mean?

 

Who said there are lies, danmed lies and statistics.....

This article might amuse you:-

http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/lies.htm

 

Nice to hear from you after such a long time.

 

 

 

[h90]

 

 

 

Don't worry about coffee, there is no known connection between coffee and cholesterol.
Take care of the fatty stuff you are eating instead

 
WOW!!!!!
 
It´d really scary to read a post like this but thanks for reminding me that we -
the people of the world have been lied to and brainwashed about cholesterol for more than 60 yeras.
You could not be more wrong and you are not to blame for believing what you posted.
The big companies spend milliond of $$ and use the best brains to ensure that we believe their lies.
 
It´s those lovely (and addictive) carbohydrates that are converted into cholesterol by your body.
Consumption of the "Good" Fats and oils actually suppress the secretion of insulin.
Carbohydrates create the secretion of insulin.
If you had high blood sugar your body secretes insulin and turns that excess blood sugar into Cholesterol.
Da Da.
 
Watch Cereal Killers don´t fear fat
or read Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes
or why we get fat and what to do about it by G T
or Get fit, lose weight and feel great the easy way By Dr John..
or any of the more up to date sources and see how we are being hoodwinked.
 
Good luck if you choose to dig a little deeper to find the truth.

 

Or just read a textbook and find out what rubbish this is. Any book on metabolism for first year med students will do, the syllabus that doctors are taught, available in any bookshop.  There you would read that carbohydrates are converted into every biochemical compound in the body, including proteins, triglycerides and even DNA.

 

That in terms of mass, the overwhelming majority of the excess carbohydrate calories that you consume are turned into triglycerides, not cholesterol. Hint: fat cells are 95% triglyceride.

 

That secretion of insulin is an essential and integral part of eating. If you did not secrete insulin you would die.
Hint: Type 1 diabetes is an inability to secrete insulin. The inability to secrete insulin is a serious life-threatening disease.
 
Consulting the scientific literature (you know, how scientists communicate their results to each other and the medical community. Hint : they do not do this by writing books) would show you that nearly every study done has shown that coffee consumption has a small but consistent elevating effect on plasma cholesterol. Is this a significant health risk? Probably not.
 
This one ( a statistical summary of 14 separate trials of the effect of coffee on plasma cholesterol levels combined) is free so you can read it: 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11207153
American Journal of Epidemiology. 2001 Feb 15;153(4):353-62.

Coffee consumption and serum lipids: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials.

Jee SH(1), He J, Appel LJ, Whelton PK, Suh I, Klag MJ. Department of Epidemiology and Disease Control, Yonsei University Graduate School of Health Science and Management, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Coffee drinking has been associated with increased serum cholesterol levels in some, but not all, studies.  A Medline search of the English-language literature published prior to December 1998, a bibliography review, and consultations with experts were performed to identify 14 published trials of coffee consumption.  [...]A dose-response relation between coffee consumption and both total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol was identified (p < 0.01). [...] Consumption of unfiltered, but not filtered, coffee increases serum levels of total and LDL cholesterol.

 

 

Thank you Partington, I feel that you are agreeing that the major source of blood fats (triglycerides and cholesterol) are carbohydrates.

After all the OP was concerned about coffee elevating his cholesterol.

You rather nicely explained "There you would read that carbohydrates are converted into every biochemical compound in the body, including proteins, triglycerides and even DNA."

I agree with you that the elevated levels of cholesterol due to coffee are probably not a serious problem.

In coffee the caffeine might be another story though, not to mention the several hundred other compounds, some of which are very beneficial.

 

I wanted only to point out that the thing to watch out for is the consumption of carbohydrates rather than fat.

I didn´t want to prove the point with a deeply technical and accurate dissertation.

 

The point of my post was a reply to the quote.

Fat in moderation does not make you fat.

Carbs do so much more easily and due to their addictive nature are harder to regulate intake.

Especially when hidden in liquids and almost all processed foods.

 

Insulin is a regulator of blood sugar I do agree and if there were no insulin then a diabetic coma would be the last event before death, unless diagnosed and treated.

Hint type 1 diabetes is a result of continual elevated levels of insulin due to continually high blood sugar (probably caused by carbohydrates?)

The pancreas is exhausted and can´t make insulin any more.

Fat is slow to digest and does not cause blood sugar spikes generally, like carbs do.

A spin round the glycemic index will show this.

At this point, should I perhaps list all the different types of sugar that are available, give their names and chemical bonding, sweetness etc and describe how fructose and alcohol are only processed by the liver. The chemistry for this is very complicated, but might be interesting? or would that overwhelm the meaning of the post?

Sometimes, it may be better to just get "the ball over the net", so to speak, rather than risk losing the point to too much technical accuracy?

 

And I do know how scientists communicate - they do as they are told to by their pay masters.

When an experiment does not come out the way they expected, they will often repeat the experiment but change the criteria, or ignore certain sets of data until they are able to publish what they want to say, and it is a truth but - really!

 

I can, as a scientist, make a study of studies.

I can then, carefully select the studies to study, all perfectly above board and done all the time.

Will the conclusions of my study be the "Truth", or "My Truth"?

And yes, it does matter!

The study of studies done by Keys omitted any data that did not agree with his hypothesis that fat people are greedy and lazy.

 

Read the books by GT and watch the videos and see what I mean.

I understand why you do.

I don´t blame you, as I posted, the best brains are being well paid to ensure that everyone is sucked into the lies.

 

You know, once upon a time it was a crime to suggest that the world was not flat!

What Was The Spanish Inquisition All About - A Truth - but what truth?

 

What was the name of the man who lived with the Inuit´s for a year and ate fat and NO veg for a year and didn´t get sick?

He was pilloried by the scientists of the day and called a liar.

Didn´t he have to commit himself to Bellevue Hospital for half a year, eat the same diet and prove that he was correct?

To be fair the scientists did publish the truth in this case but it not something that "respectable people" want to be associated with.

It flies too far in the face of popular beliefs.

 

I suppose that we should not mention the scientist who suggested that the MMR was a major factor in Autism etc..

I mean, just who does one believe in this most corrupt of worlds?

Is big business backed by phony science?

According to documentaries that I have watched Hitler certainly was. There's a series running on Spanish TV at the moment.

So,
Anecdotal evidence'

What a which doctor tells us?
The media?
 

Do you have time to explain the role of triglycerides in the production of cholesterol.

You may turn to documents like this:-

Cholesterol and Triglycerides
What You Should Know
Michael T. McDermott MD
Professor of Medicine
Endocrinology Practice Director
Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Diabetes
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
Denver, Colorado 80262
Phone: 720.848.2650
You can read this PDF here:-
http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/medicalschool/departments/medicine/EndocrinologyMetabolismDiabetes/clinical/Documents/Lipid_Brochure.pdf

Interestingly, there is no date on the document.
But even this document does not (IMO) adequately deal with VLDL and other components of cholesterol.
It does not show that the large balloon like LDL molecules are not harmful at all and therefore, good as this old document is, it stops short. It does not include the latest discoveries and is somewhat misleading because of that omission.
It´s those tinv, very dense LDL molecules that are small enough to get under the epithelial cells in the lining of the arteries.
So if Both HDL and LDL increase, it is important to know how the LDL components are made up in order to decide if it is actually a good or a bad thing.

This is nicely explained in Cereal Killers, don´t fear fat. 

 

Don´t you just love it when bottled water shouts loudly that it does not contain Glutine, well you know what I mean?

 

Who said there are lies, danmed lies and statistics.....

This article might amuse you:-

http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/lies.htm

 

Nice to hear from you after such a long time.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know what you two are writing here:

"There you would read that carbohydrates are converted into every biochemical compound in the body, including proteins, triglycerides and even DNA." That carbohydrates can be converted to protein is pretty new knowledge....

In fact you can live fine without carbohydrates. You need proteins, essential fat acids and vitamins but carbohydrates aren't needed.

 

"What was the name of the man who lived with the Inuit´s for a year and ate fat and NO veg for a year and didn´t get sick?" Without Vitamin C you get sick pretty fast. Inuits need way less than other people but they also lost their teeth when they lived traditional.

 

 

[partington]

I don't know what you two are writing here:
"There you would read that carbohydrates are converted into every biochemical compound in the body, including proteins, triglycerides and even DNA." That carbohydrates can be converted to protein is pretty new knowledge....
In fact you can live fine without carbohydrates. You need proteins, essential fat acids and vitamins but carbohydrates aren't needed.

Yes, fair enough, it is quite true you can live without carbs, but you can't live without proteins because there are 8 or so essential amino acids (the building blocks of protein) that the body can't make, so you have to get them by eating them. But the rest of the amino acids (non-essential) can be made by the body, starting from carbohydrates.

I was simply trying to point out that the carbon backbone of glucose that you eat can end up as part of a protein in a muscle, and that there are interconversion pathways for almost all essential biochemicals, and so trying to say that sugar "ends up as" cholesterol is not really accurate. 
 
Sugar ends up as pretty much everything, including proteins, but is overwhelmingly stored as fat, as triglyceride. If it wasn't for triglyceride birds could not migrate 4000 miles without eating, because no other storage compound has as many calories per gram. Storage as starch or cholesterol (even if possible) would result in a bird so heavy it couldn't take off.
 
 
Boring references:
The amino acid alanine can be made from pyruvate (a carbohydrate, the product of anaerobic metabolism of glucose, ie the first stage in the usage of glucose to provide energy)

http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/amino-acid-metabolism.php#glutamate

Other non essential amino acids are made from α-ketoglutarate. This is a carbohydrate that is made during the TCA cycle (the reactions forming the second stage of of getting energy from carbohydrates that you eat: aerobic glycolysis)

"Nonessential amino acids are produced in the body. The pathways for the synthesis of nonessential amino acids are quite simple. Glutamate dehydrogenase catalyzes the reductive amination of α-ketoglutarate to glutamate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid_synthesis

Edited August 10, 2014 by partington

[partington]

 

 

 

Don't worry about coffee, there is no known connection between coffee and cholesterol.
Take care of the fatty stuff you are eating instead

 
WOW!!!!!
 
It´d really scary to read a post like this but thanks for reminding me that we -
the people of the world have been lied to and brainwashed about cholesterol for more than 60 yeras.
You could not be more wrong and you are not to blame for believing what you posted.
The big companies spend milliond of $$ and use the best brains to ensure that we believe their lies.
 
It´s those lovely (and addictive) carbohydrates that are converted into cholesterol by your body.
Consumption of the "Good" Fats and oils actually suppress the secretion of insulin.
Carbohydrates create the secretion of insulin.
If you had high blood sugar your body secretes insulin and turns that excess blood sugar into Cholesterol.
Da Da.
 
Watch Cereal Killers don´t fear fat
or read Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes
or why we get fat and what to do about it by G T
or Get fit, lose weight and feel great the easy way By Dr John..
or any of the more up to date sources and see how we are being hoodwinked.
 
Good luck if you choose to dig a little deeper to find the truth.

 

Or just read a textbook and find out what rubbish this is. Any book on metabolism for first year med students will do, the syllabus that doctors are taught, available in any bookshop.  There you would read that carbohydrates are converted into every biochemical compound in the body, including proteins, triglycerides and even DNA.

 

That in terms of mass, the overwhelming majority of the excess carbohydrate calories that you consume are turned into triglycerides, not cholesterol. Hint: fat cells are 95% triglyceride.

 

That secretion of insulin is an essential and integral part of eating. If you did not secrete insulin you would die.
Hint: Type 1 diabetes is an inability to secrete insulin. The inability to secrete insulin is a serious life-threatening disease.
 
Consulting the scientific literature (you know, how scientists communicate their results to each other and the medical community. Hint : they do not do this by writing books) would show you that nearly every study done has shown that coffee consumption has a small but consistent elevating effect on plasma cholesterol. Is this a significant health risk? Probably not.
 
This one ( a statistical summary of 14 separate trials of the effect of coffee on plasma cholesterol levels combined) is free so you can read it: 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11207153
American Journal of Epidemiology. 2001 Feb 15;153(4):353-62.

Coffee consumption and serum lipids: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials.

Jee SH(1), He J, Appel LJ, Whelton PK, Suh I, Klag MJ. Department of Epidemiology and Disease Control, Yonsei University Graduate School of Health Science and Management, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Coffee drinking has been associated with increased serum cholesterol levels in some, but not all, studies.  A Medline search of the English-language literature published prior to December 1998, a bibliography review, and consultations with experts were performed to identify 14 published trials of coffee consumption.  [...]A dose-response relation between coffee consumption and both total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol was identified (p < 0.01). [...] Consumption of unfiltered, but not filtered, coffee increases serum levels of total and LDL cholesterol.

 

 

Thank you Partington, I feel that you are agreeing that the major source of blood fats (triglycerides and cholesterol) are carbohydrates.

After all the OP was concerned about coffee elevating his cholesterol.

You rather nicely explained "There you would read that carbohydrates are converted into every biochemical compound in the body, including proteins, triglycerides and even DNA."

I agree with you that the elevated levels of cholesterol due to coffee are probably not a serious problem.

In coffee the caffeine might be another story though, not to mention the several hundred other compounds, some of which are very beneficial.

 

I wanted only to point out that the thing to watch out for is the consumption of carbohydrates rather than fat.

I didn´t want to prove the point with a deeply technical and accurate dissertation.

 

The point of my post was a reply to the quote.

Fat in moderation does not make you fat.

Carbs do so much more easily and due to their addictive nature are harder to regulate intake.

Especially when hidden in liquids and almost all processed foods.

 

Insulin is a regulator of blood sugar I do agree and if there were no insulin then a diabetic coma would be the last event before death, unless diagnosed and treated.

Hint type 1 diabetes is a result of continual elevated levels of insulin due to continually high blood sugar (probably caused by carbohydrates?)

The pancreas is exhausted and can´t make insulin any more.

Fat is slow to digest and does not cause blood sugar spikes generally, like carbs do.

A spin round the glycemic index will show this.

At this point, should I perhaps list all the different types of sugar that are available, give their names and chemical bonding, sweetness etc and describe how fructose and alcohol are only processed by the liver. The chemistry for this is very complicated, but might be interesting? or would that overwhelm the meaning of the post?

Sometimes, it may be better to just get "the ball over the net", so to speak, rather than risk losing the point to too much technical accuracy?

 

And I do know how scientists communicate - they do as they are told to by their pay masters.

When an experiment does not come out the way they expected, they will often repeat the experiment but change the criteria, or ignore certain sets of data until they are able to publish what they want to say, and it is a truth but - really!

 

I can, as a scientist, make a study of studies.

I can then, carefully select the studies to study, all perfectly above board and done all the time.

Will the conclusions of my study be the "Truth", or "My Truth"?

And yes, it does matter!

The study of studies done by Keys omitted any data that did not agree with his hypothesis that fat people are greedy and lazy.

 

Read the books by GT and watch the videos and see what I mean.

I understand why you do.

I don´t blame you, as I posted, the best brains are being well paid to ensure that everyone is sucked into the lies.

 

You know, once upon a time it was a crime to suggest that the world was not flat!

What Was The Spanish Inquisition All About - A Truth - but what truth?

 

What was the name of the man who lived with the Inuit´s for a year and ate fat and NO veg for a year and didn´t get sick?

He was pilloried by the scientists of the day and called a liar.

Didn´t he have to commit himself to Bellevue Hospital for half a year, eat the same diet and prove that he was correct?

To be fair the scientists did publish the truth in this case but it not something that "respectable people" want to be associated with.

It flies too far in the face of popular beliefs.

 

I suppose that we should not mention the scientist who suggested that the MMR was a major factor in Autism etc..

I mean, just who does one believe in this most corrupt of worlds?

Is big business backed by phony science?

According to documentaries that I have watched Hitler certainly was. There's a series running on Spanish TV at the moment.

So,
Anecdotal evidence'

What a which doctor tells us?
The media?
 

Do you have time to explain the role of triglycerides in the production of cholesterol.

You may turn to documents like this:-

Cholesterol and Triglycerides
What You Should Know
Michael T. McDermott MD
Professor of Medicine
Endocrinology Practice Director
Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Diabetes
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
Denver, Colorado 80262
Phone: 720.848.2650
You can read this PDF here:-
http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/medicalschool/departments/medicine/EndocrinologyMetabolismDiabetes/clinical/Documents/Lipid_Brochure.pdf

Interestingly, there is no date on the document.
But even this document does not (IMO) adequately deal with VLDL and other components of cholesterol.
It does not show that the large balloon like LDL molecules are not harmful at all and therefore, good as this old document is, it stops short. It does not include the latest discoveries and is somewhat misleading because of that omission.
It´s those tinv, very dense LDL molecules that are small enough to get under the epithelial cells in the lining of the arteries.
So if Both HDL and LDL increase, it is important to know how the LDL components are made up in order to decide if it is actually a good or a bad thing.

This is nicely explained in Cereal Killers, don´t fear fat. 

 

Don´t you just love it when bottled water shouts loudly that it does not contain Glutine, well you know what I mean?

 

Who said there are lies, danmed lies and statistics.....

This article might amuse you:-

http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/lies.htm

 

Nice to hear from you after such a long time.

 

 

 

 

Almost everything you say in this post is in error, including mistaking type 1 for type 2 diabetes, thinking that small dense LDL is "small enough" to get under the endothelium, making the logical error that if one scientist or a few commit fraud, all scientists do, and repeating a fictional story about Inuit diets from some website without checking.

 

Glad to see you are as reliable as ever!

[Spaniel]

 

I became ill a couple of years ago and so didn't feel like drinking my usual two cups of wake up strong coffee.  Since I got headaches every prior time I tried to get off coffee I felt like I was truly addicted and that time was a good one to De-caffinate.

 

I have not knowingly injested any caffeine since.  Upon arising, I drink a moderate size glass of fresh orange juice with pulp and the fructose in orange juice gives me the same wake up boost I used to get from coffee, without the caffeine jitters and stomach false hunger pangs I used to get when drinking coffee.

 

Clearly ones blood sugar markedly goes down during sleep and raising that blood sugar upon arising would act as a boost. I have known people who have a mug of coffee in their hand during the entire work day and they must have terrible withdrawal symptoms if they ever tried to decaffeinate.

 

Well the sugar doesn't help. I am at the moment at low carbs. When I don't train that day I don't eat anything till 1 PM.

If I train I eat a musli in the morning. With musli or without I feel the same.

 

maybe I should stop with the caffeine........

(stopped smoking, stopped drinking, stopped the good food, stopped coffee.....what is left?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good health, for starters!

[h90]

 

I don't know what you two are writing here:
"There you would read that carbohydrates are converted into every biochemical compound in the body, including proteins, triglycerides and even DNA." That carbohydrates can be converted to protein is pretty new knowledge....
In fact you can live fine without carbohydrates. You need proteins, essential fat acids and vitamins but carbohydrates aren't needed.

Yes, fair enough, it is quite true you can live without carbs, but you can't live without proteins because there are 8 or so essential amino acids (the building blocks of protein) that the body can't make, so you have to get them by eating them. But the rest of the amino acids (non-essential) can be made by the body, starting from carbohydrates.

I was simply trying to point out that the carbon backbone of glucose that you eat can end up as part of a protein in a muscle, and that there are interconversion pathways for almost all essential biochemicals, and so trying to say that sugar "ends up as" cholesterol is not really accurate. 
 
Sugar ends up as pretty much everything, including proteins, but is overwhelmingly stored as fat, as triglyceride. If it wasn't for triglyceride birds could not migrate 4000 miles without eating, because no other storage compound has as many calories per gram. Storage as starch or cholesterol (even if possible) would result in a bird so heavy it couldn't take off.
 
 
Boring references:
The amino acid alanine can be made from pyruvate (a carbohydrate, the product of anaerobic metabolism of glucose, ie the first stage in the usage of glucose to provide energy)

http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/amino-acid-metabolism.php#glutamate

Other non essential amino acids are made from α-ketoglutarate. This is a carbohydrate that is made during the TCA cycle (the reactions forming the second stage of of getting energy from carbohydrates that you eat: aerobic glycolysis)

"Nonessential amino acids are produced in the body. The pathways for the synthesis of nonessential amino acids are quite simple. Glutamate dehydrogenase catalyzes the reductive amination of α-ketoglutarate to glutamate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid_synthesis

 

 

Yes...but also the non essential amino acids "can't" be made from carbohydrates (alone). They are basically made from other amino acids or parts of them as there is no other way to get the Nitrogen. So we need some other amino acids to build the non essential ones. But for building them we can use carbohydrates from food or we can take this part also from other amino acids.

So on the biochemical level it works without eating any carbohydrates.

 

Yes:

Amino acids build the structure.

Sugar is energy that can be used fast but badly stored (plants can store it as starch, animals have such storage only very limited).

Fat is more difficult to use but can stored in almost infinity amounts.

 

While Cholesterol is the base for various hormones and similar and more important it keeps the cell hulls fluid. Without it, the polar-unpolar-polar hull of the cells would get stiff couldn't clean itself.

But it doesn't provide energy (at least not in relevant amounts)

[partington]

 

 

I don't know what you two are writing here:
"There you would read that carbohydrates are converted into every biochemical compound in the body, including proteins, triglycerides and even DNA." That carbohydrates can be converted to protein is pretty new knowledge....
In fact you can live fine without carbohydrates. You need proteins, essential fat acids and vitamins but carbohydrates aren't needed.

Yes, fair enough, it is quite true you can live without carbs, but you can't live without proteins because there are 8 or so essential amino acids (the building blocks of protein) that the body can't make, so you have to get them by eating them. But the rest of the amino acids (non-essential) can be made by the body, starting from carbohydrates.

I was simply trying to point out that the carbon backbone of glucose that you eat can end up as part of a protein in a muscle, and that there are interconversion pathways for almost all essential biochemicals, and so trying to say that sugar "ends up as" cholesterol is not really accurate. 
 
Sugar ends up as pretty much everything, including proteins, but is overwhelmingly stored as fat, as triglyceride. If it wasn't for triglyceride birds could not migrate 4000 miles without eating, because no other storage compound has as many calories per gram. Storage as starch or cholesterol (even if possible) would result in a bird so heavy it couldn't take off.
 
 
Boring references:
The amino acid alanine can be made from pyruvate (a carbohydrate, the product of anaerobic metabolism of glucose, ie the first stage in the usage of glucose to provide energy)

http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/amino-acid-metabolism.php#glutamate

Other non essential amino acids are made from α-ketoglutarate. This is a carbohydrate that is made during the TCA cycle (the reactions forming the second stage of of getting energy from carbohydrates that you eat: aerobic glycolysis)

"Nonessential amino acids are produced in the body. The pathways for the synthesis of nonessential amino acids are quite simple. Glutamate dehydrogenase catalyzes the reductive amination of α-ketoglutarate to glutamate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid_synthesis

 

 

Yes...but also the non essential amino acids "can't" be made from carbohydrates (alone). They are basically made from other amino acids or parts of them as there is no other way to get the Nitrogen. So we need some other amino acids to build the non essential ones. But for building them we can use carbohydrates from food or we can take this part also from other amino acids.

So on the biochemical level it works without eating any carbohydrates.

 

Yes:

Amino acids build the structure.

Sugar is energy that can be used fast but badly stored (plants can store it as starch, animals have such storage only very limited).

Fat is more difficult to use but can stored in almost infinity amounts.

 

While Cholesterol is the base for various hormones and similar and more important it keeps the cell hulls fluid. Without it, the polar-unpolar-polar hull of the cells would get stiff couldn't clean itself.

But it doesn't provide energy (at least not in relevant amounts)

 

Yes, no argument from me.

[laislica]

 

 

 

WOW!!!!!
 
It´d really scary to read a post like this but thanks for reminding me that we -
the people of the world have been lied to and brainwashed about cholesterol for more than 60 yeras.
You could not be more wrong and you are not to blame for believing what you posted.
The big companies spend milliond of $$ and use the best brains to ensure that we believe their lies.
 
It´s those lovely (and addictive) carbohydrates that are converted into cholesterol by your body.
Consumption of the "Good" Fats and oils actually suppress the secretion of insulin.
Carbohydrates create the secretion of insulin.
If you had high blood sugar your body secretes insulin and turns that excess blood sugar into Cholesterol.
Da Da.
 
Watch Cereal Killers don´t fear fat
or read Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes
or why we get fat and what to do about it by G T
or Get fit, lose weight and feel great the easy way By Dr John..
or any of the more up to date sources and see how we are being hoodwinked.
 
Good luck if you choose to dig a little deeper to find the truth.

 

Or just read a textbook and find out what rubbish this is. Any book on metabolism for first year med students will do, the syllabus that doctors are taught, available in any bookshop.  There you would read that carbohydrates are converted into every biochemical compound in the body, including proteins, triglycerides and even DNA.

 

That in terms of mass, the overwhelming majority of the excess carbohydrate calories that you consume are turned into triglycerides, not cholesterol. Hint: fat cells are 95% triglyceride.

 

That secretion of insulin is an essential and integral part of eating. If you did not secrete insulin you would die.
Hint: Type 1 diabetes is an inability to secrete insulin. The inability to secrete insulin is a serious life-threatening disease.
 
Consulting the scientific literature (you know, how scientists communicate their results to each other and the medical community. Hint : they do not do this by writing books) would show you that nearly every study done has shown that coffee consumption has a small but consistent elevating effect on plasma cholesterol. Is this a significant health risk? Probably not.
 
This one ( a statistical summary of 14 separate trials of the effect of coffee on plasma cholesterol levels combined) is free so you can read it: 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11207153
American Journal of Epidemiology. 2001 Feb 15;153(4):353-62.

Coffee consumption and serum lipids: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials.

Jee SH(1), He J, Appel LJ, Whelton PK, Suh I, Klag MJ. Department of Epidemiology and Disease Control, Yonsei University Graduate School of Health Science and Management, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Coffee drinking has been associated with increased serum cholesterol levels in some, but not all, studies.  A Medline search of the English-language literature published prior to December 1998, a bibliography review, and consultations with experts were performed to identify 14 published trials of coffee consumption.  [...]A dose-response relation between coffee consumption and both total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol was identified (p < 0.01). [...] Consumption of unfiltered, but not filtered, coffee increases serum levels of total and LDL cholesterol.

 

 

Thank you Partington, I feel that you are agreeing that the major source of blood fats (triglycerides and cholesterol) are carbohydrates.

After all the OP was concerned about coffee elevating his cholesterol.

You rather nicely explained "There you would read that carbohydrates are converted into every biochemical compound in the body, including proteins, triglycerides and even DNA."

I agree with you that the elevated levels of cholesterol due to coffee are probably not a serious problem.

In coffee the caffeine might be another story though, not to mention the several hundred other compounds, some of which are very beneficial.

 

I wanted only to point out that the thing to watch out for is the consumption of carbohydrates rather than fat.

I didn´t want to prove the point with a deeply technical and accurate dissertation.

 

The point of my post was a reply to the quote.

Fat in moderation does not make you fat.

Carbs do so much more easily and due to their addictive nature are harder to regulate intake.

Especially when hidden in liquids and almost all processed foods.

 

Insulin is a regulator of blood sugar I do agree and if there were no insulin then a diabetic coma would be the last event before death, unless diagnosed and treated.

Hint type 1 diabetes is a result of continual elevated levels of insulin due to continually high blood sugar (probably caused by carbohydrates?)

The pancreas is exhausted and can´t make insulin any more.

Fat is slow to digest and does not cause blood sugar spikes generally, like carbs do.

A spin round the glycemic index will show this.

At this point, should I perhaps list all the different types of sugar that are available, give their names and chemical bonding, sweetness etc and describe how fructose and alcohol are only processed by the liver. The chemistry for this is very complicated, but might be interesting? or would that overwhelm the meaning of the post?

Sometimes, it may be better to just get "the ball over the net", so to speak, rather than risk losing the point to too much technical accuracy?

 

And I do know how scientists communicate - they do as they are told to by their pay masters.

When an experiment does not come out the way they expected, they will often repeat the experiment but change the criteria, or ignore certain sets of data until they are able to publish what they want to say, and it is a truth but - really!

 

I can, as a scientist, make a study of studies.

I can then, carefully select the studies to study, all perfectly above board and done all the time.

Will the conclusions of my study be the "Truth", or "My Truth"?

And yes, it does matter!

The study of studies done by Keys omitted any data that did not agree with his hypothesis that fat people are greedy and lazy.

 

Read the books by GT and watch the videos and see what I mean.

I understand why you do.

I don´t blame you, as I posted, the best brains are being well paid to ensure that everyone is sucked into the lies.

 

You know, once upon a time it was a crime to suggest that the world was not flat!

What Was The Spanish Inquisition All About - A Truth - but what truth?

 

What was the name of the man who lived with the Inuit´s for a year and ate fat and NO veg for a year and didn´t get sick?

He was pilloried by the scientists of the day and called a liar.

Didn´t he have to commit himself to Bellevue Hospital for half a year, eat the same diet and prove that he was correct?

To be fair the scientists did publish the truth in this case but it not something that "respectable people" want to be associated with.

It flies too far in the face of popular beliefs.

 

I suppose that we should not mention the scientist who suggested that the MMR was a major factor in Autism etc..

I mean, just who does one believe in this most corrupt of worlds?

Is big business backed by phony science?

According to documentaries that I have watched Hitler certainly was. There's a series running on Spanish TV at the moment.

So,
Anecdotal evidence'

What a which doctor tells us?
The media?
 

Do you have time to explain the role of triglycerides in the production of cholesterol.

You may turn to documents like this:-

Cholesterol and Triglycerides
What You Should Know
Michael T. McDermott MD
Professor of Medicine
Endocrinology Practice Director
Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Diabetes
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
Denver, Colorado 80262
Phone: 720.848.2650
You can read this PDF here:-
http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/medicalschool/departments/medicine/EndocrinologyMetabolismDiabetes/clinical/Documents/Lipid_Brochure.pdf

Interestingly, there is no date on the document.
But even this document does not (IMO) adequately deal with VLDL and other components of cholesterol.
It does not show that the large balloon like LDL molecules are not harmful at all and therefore, good as this old document is, it stops short. It does not include the latest discoveries and is somewhat misleading because of that omission.
It´s those tinv, very dense LDL molecules that are small enough to get under the epithelial cells in the lining of the arteries.
So if Both HDL and LDL increase, it is important to know how the LDL components are made up in order to decide if it is actually a good or a bad thing.

This is nicely explained in Cereal Killers, don´t fear fat. 

 

Don´t you just love it when bottled water shouts loudly that it does not contain Glutine, well you know what I mean?

 

Who said there are lies, danmed lies and statistics.....

This article might amuse you:-

http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/lies.htm

 

Nice to hear from you after such a long time.

 

 

 

 

Almost everything you say in this post is in error, including mistaking type 1 for type 2 diabetes, thinking that small dense LDL is "small enough" to get under the endothelium, making the logical error that if one scientist or a few commit fraud, all scientists do, and repeating a fictional story about Inuit diets from some website without checking.

 

Glad to see you are as reliable as ever!

 

 

So what did you think about the links I provided?

You read/watched them, or is this just your usual quick response?

 

 

[partington]

Almost everything you say in this post is in error, including mistaking type 1 for type 2 diabetes, thinking that small dense LDL is "small enough" to get under the endothelium, making the logical error that if one scientist or a few commit fraud, all scientists do, and repeating a fictional story about Inuit diets from some website without checking.
 
Glad to see you are as reliable as ever!

 
So what did you think about the links I provided?
You read/watched them, or is this just your usual quick response?

I can respond quickly because this is one of the few (only) subjects I know a lot about.
No offence, but I only read science papers to get scientific information. Quotes from doctors, or books by doctors, while they can be good, can also be terrifyingly bad.  As far as I'm concerned, if it's not peer reviewed, and in a reputable scientific journal, it doesn't count as scientific research, and I always ignore this kind of information. 
 
Some of what you say in this enormous post is OK, but most is just unproven or known not to be true. Most importantly what you say about LDL subfractions, and especially large LDL not being dangerous at all, is simply wrong.

I have provided a diagram of the relative sizes of the LDL subfractions that you have been mentioning, so that you can see that the size differences are minimal, and that the names  ( "small dense" and "large buoyant" ) are giving you the wrong idea.  The difference in size is not the reason why small dense LDL (approx diameter 2.57nm) is more of a risk for heart disease than large buoyant LDL (approx diameter 2.72nm). It is the metabolic differences that are important, the size difference is very small and one is not "balloon-like" compared to the other!
 
Ref: http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/16/6/794.abstract?ijkey=8a7b0b7256ae397243f3c93b8c640cce5e31d46e&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

It is also a mistake to think that because small dense LDL is MORE of a risk factor than large buoyant LDL, this means large buoyant LDL is not a risk factor at all. This is not the case, any more than because a gun is more of a risk factor than a knife, this means knives are not dangerous.  These are not binary. Identifying one risk factor does not render the others irrelevant!

Don't want to have a fight about it though, as I tend to get too irritated at (often well meaning) half-truths and misinformation spread on the web.

Let's just say too much carbohydrate is never good and leave it at that.

[h90]

 

 

Almost everything you say in this post is in error, including mistaking type 1 for type 2 diabetes, thinking that small dense LDL is "small enough" to get under the endothelium, making the logical error that if one scientist or a few commit fraud, all scientists do, and repeating a fictional story about Inuit diets from some website without checking.
 
Glad to see you are as reliable as ever!

 
So what did you think about the links I provided?
You read/watched them, or is this just your usual quick response?

 

I can respond quickly because this is one of the few (only) subjects I know a lot about.
No offence, but I only read science papers to get scientific information. Quotes from doctors, or books by doctors, while they can be good, can also be terrifyingly bad.  As far as I'm concerned, if it's not peer reviewed, and in a reputable scientific journal, it doesn't count as scientific research, and I always ignore this kind of information. 
 
Some of what you say in this enormous post is OK, but most is just unproven or known not to be true. Most importantly what you say about LDL subfractions, and especially large LDL not being dangerous at all, is simply wrong.

I have provided a diagram of the relative sizes of the LDL subfractions that you have been mentioning, so that you can see that the size differences are minimal, and that the names  ( "small dense" and "large buoyant" ) are giving you the wrong idea.  The difference in size is not the reason why small dense LDL (approx diameter 2.57nm) is more of a risk for heart disease than large buoyant LDL (approx diameter 2.72nm). It is the metabolic differences that are important, the size difference is very small and one is not "balloon-like" compared to the other!
 
Ref: http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/16/6/794.abstract?ijkey=8a7b0b7256ae397243f3c93b8c640cce5e31d46e&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

It is also a mistake to think that because small dense LDL is MORE of a risk factor than large buoyant LDL, this means large buoyant LDL is not a risk factor at all. This is not the case, any more than because a gun is more of a risk factor than a knife, this means knives are not dangerous.  These are not binary. Identifying one risk factor does not render the others irrelevant!

Don't want to have a fight about it though, as I tend to get too irritated at (often well meaning) half-truths and misinformation spread on the web.

Let's just say too much carbohydrate is never good and leave it at that.

 

 

Beside that "misinformation spread on the web.": when you search on the web, you find just about anything. So everyone can find what fits into their mindset (Eat less fat more carbs. Eat less carbs more fat, don't eat protein, food doesn't matter, you must exercise, exercise doesn't matter, etc etc etc).

You have a lot people who report something, which can be either coincident or just working for them or complete made up.....

 

For me it is just a 2 week test....changing many things and re-check. Might be no change or might change which wouldn't confirm anything as it could be coincident, but still interesting for myself.

 

Someone wrote that the cholesterol test itself can be 30 mg/dL wrong (which would mean a +/-30, The same person could be measured with 190 or 250 mg/dL I doubt that.....but it is also a reason for the re-test).
 

[laislica]

 

 

Almost everything you say in this post is in error, including mistaking type 1 for type 2 diabetes, thinking that small dense LDL is "small enough" to get under the endothelium, making the logical error that if one scientist or a few commit fraud, all scientists do, and repeating a fictional story about Inuit diets from some website without checking.
 
Glad to see you are as reliable as ever!

 
So what did you think about the links I provided?
You read/watched them, or is this just your usual quick response?

 

I can respond quickly because this is one of the few (only) subjects I know a lot about.
No offence, but I only read science papers to get scientific information. Quotes from doctors, or books by doctors, while they can be good, can also be terrifyingly bad.  As far as I'm concerned, if it's not peer reviewed, and in a reputable scientific journal, it doesn't count as scientific research, and I always ignore this kind of information. 
 
Some of what you say in this enormous post is OK, but most is just unproven or known not to be true. Most importantly what you say about LDL subfractions, and especially large LDL not being dangerous at all, is simply wrong.

I have provided a diagram of the relative sizes of the LDL subfractions that you have been mentioning, so that you can see that the size differences are minimal, and that the names  ( "small dense" and "large buoyant" ) are giving you the wrong idea.  The difference in size is not the reason why small dense LDL (approx diameter 2.57nm) is more of a risk for heart disease than large buoyant LDL (approx diameter 2.72nm). It is the metabolic differences that are important, the size difference is very small and one is not "balloon-like" compared to the other!
 
Ref: http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/16/6/794.abstract?ijkey=8a7b0b7256ae397243f3c93b8c640cce5e31d46e&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

It is also a mistake to think that because small dense LDL is MORE of a risk factor than large buoyant LDL, this means large buoyant LDL is not a risk factor at all. This is not the case, any more than because a gun is more of a risk factor than a knife, this means knives are not dangerous.  These are not binary. Identifying one risk factor does not render the others irrelevant!

Don't want to have a fight about it though, as I tend to get too irritated at (often well meaning) half-truths and misinformation spread on the web.

Let's just say too much carbohydrate is never good and leave it at that.

 

 

I have no desire to provoke you but....

It seems to me that unless you agree that a certain research is "acceptable to you science" it is not science and you disregard it - it never happened!

One of the many definitions of science is :- The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:

I´d love to know what you regard as a definition.

 

Science papers, quotes from doctors, or books by doctors, while they can be good, can also be terrifyingly bad.

Now that slightly modified statement is something that I will agree with 100%.

 

As I mentioned before, it is very difficult to know who to trust in this most corrupt world.

It may be easier to list who not to trust?

For starters;-

Politicians,

People with vested interests,

Scientists who receive all their funds from companies,

Big companies who make profit from sales. (such as:- Sugar, Tobacco, Oil products, Drugs, Vaccinations, as a start)

 

Show me a truly independent researcher in the medical field, show me where their funding comes from and what they have invested in.

 

Most people are not independent, never mind scientists.

 

A rellie of mine is a microbiologist.

He choose to stay as an academic researcher because he wanted to retain more control over his research.

It is quite a sacrifice, the pay is considerably less than big companies would give him.

But note "retain more control" he says that even the University he is employed by is fairly strictly controlled by the fund providers.

Projects will be cancelled if it is likely that the result will not please the fund provider!

 

Trust is a minefield, having a brain and an open mind and using them is a good idea.

To dismiss things out of hand is what scares me and makes me more suspicious of "Scientists and their peers".

Had you watched/read something I referenced and were then able to debunk it would have been far more acceptable to me.

How can you just dismiss something?

You are not being asked to make a leap of faith!

 

Good luck with your quest for the "Truth".

 

 

 

[laislica]

 

 

Beside that "misinformation spread on the web.": when you search on the web, you find just about anything. So everyone can find what fits into their mindset (Eat less fat more carbs. Eat less carbs more fat, don't eat protein, food doesn't matter, you must exercise, exercise doesn't matter, etc etc etc).

You have a lot people who report something, which can be either coincident or just working for them or complete made up.....

 

For me it is just a 2 week test....changing many things and re-check. Might be no change or might change which wouldn't confirm anything as it could be coincident, but still interesting for myself.

 

Someone wrote that the cholesterol test itself can be 30 mg/dL wrong (which would mean a +/-30, The same person could be measured with 190 or 250 mg/dL I doubt that.....but it is also a reason for the re-test).
 

 

 

Whilst what you say about finding what you want to hear on the web, the scary thing is that your statement is also true of science.

 

To be perfectly honest. I have learned a lot from many posts on this forum.

Many are honest, no vested interest posts of their own experience.

I am also happy to continue to do so.

All info on a subject is of interest and should be taken into account.
It seems a pity to me that a paradigm shift is necessary before the scientific community agrees to accept a new "wisdom".

The earth is round?

 

Anyway, good luck with your experiment.
 

[h90]

 

 

 

Beside that "misinformation spread on the web.": when you search on the web, you find just about anything. So everyone can find what fits into their mindset (Eat less fat more carbs. Eat less carbs more fat, don't eat protein, food doesn't matter, you must exercise, exercise doesn't matter, etc etc etc).

You have a lot people who report something, which can be either coincident or just working for them or complete made up.....

 

For me it is just a 2 week test....changing many things and re-check. Might be no change or might change which wouldn't confirm anything as it could be coincident, but still interesting for myself.

 

Someone wrote that the cholesterol test itself can be 30 mg/dL wrong (which would mean a +/-30, The same person could be measured with 190 or 250 mg/dL I doubt that.....but it is also a reason for the re-test).
 

 

 

Whilst what you say about finding what you want to hear on the web, the scary thing is that your statement is also true of science.

 

To be perfectly honest. I have learned a lot from many posts on this forum.

Many are honest, no vested interest posts of their own experience.

I am also happy to continue to do so.

All info on a subject is of interest and should be taken into account.
It seems a pity to me that a paradigm shift is necessary before the scientific community agrees to accept a new "wisdom".

The earth is round?

 

Anyway, good luck with your experiment.
 

 

 

The science community has strict rules how to accept or not accept new things.

This is absolute necessary to gain safe knowledge.

(that every study cost lots of money and that any study that proofs that medication that makes billions of $$ per year might only happen in North Korea. A friend of mine made a study about Vitamin C and he got the idea to just include checks of Vitamin C in apples in his free time. He got told clearly that everything will be canceled if he does (reason some of these modern apples don't have any after stored half a year). That were just apples....Imagine what happen if you want to proof that statin isn't necessary)