>There is no known minimally required level of LDL for health. People who carry mutations in both copies of the PCSK9 gene contain no detectable levels of serum LDL and are healthy with very low levels of heart disease.
Where did you get that from? People with no LDL are dead.
People who have the type of mutation on PCSK9 to enhance LDL receptor activity on cell surfaces enjoy greatly reduced rates of heart disease because there's less LDL running around in the blood (it's being more efficiently taken up by cells) and so less serum LDL => less LDL oxidation => less bad stuff. But the notion that there is none is flat out wrong. The same amount of LDL is reaching the cells, it's just taking less time to get there.
The numbers are given in the second entry in a google search for PCSK9 mutations. 35% difference in takeup. Not 100% as your wrong statement implies.
No it isn't. You may have noticed how people have become less healthy as they removed saturated fats from their diet. You may however missed the vast body of evidence that has replaced the crappy epidemiological evidence that wrongly implicated saturated fats in the 70s.
> the overwhelming consensus is that saturated fat is bad for you No. This is the thoroughly debunked consensus. It is not longer consensus.
> The odd exception is coconut oil for reasons that still aren't fully clear yet. It's ketogenic. The metabolic pathways that make this true are fully understood.
>My advice is to simply pick whatever option has the least of both I will not be taking your advice. I'll go with the science myself. I'll stick to fats that aren't trans and don't oxidize at the first sign of oxygen.
You seem to be reading very different things into those books.
The abstract of the article agrees with what I said. Read it. The cleaving happens in the brush border. The brush border is on the inside of your stomach. There's no different metabolic pathway for the post cleaved fructose+glucose from either source.
Taubes rightly points to examples of peoples (like the Pima) who's health turned to shit after they were displaced and were given grains in place of a hunter gatherer lifestyle. HFCS didn't even exist back then.
No one has produced evidence that the 4-5% different in ratio makes any difference in the metabolic response.
I had to find my way. Meat with green veggies is fine. Cream is fine. Eggs cooked with cream and cheese are excellent. Fermented foods are fine. Eating lard in isolation is not fine, it's gross.
Some things appear to be an acquired taste. I can eat butter straight up, but it took some adaption. Now I enjoy it.
>I've been told that trans fats are very bad and saturated fats are bad. No, bulk trans fats are very bad, small amounts appear to be fine. Saturated fats are very, very healthy.
>What I've wondered is: if I'm going to eat something bad, and one of my options has a lot less saturated fat but a little more trans fat, how do I decide if this option is the lesser of the evils. Easy, eat the saturated fat.
>At what rate should you trade saturated fats for trans fats. I've tried googling, but no luck. Eat as much saturated fat as you want. Eat trans fats in the small amounts that appear in dairy products. Stop eating when you are satiated.
>Food processors will change over to oils like coconut, palm kernel oil, and animal based oils because they can be solid at room temperature,
Yes. This would be an enormous improvement.
>My wife has a severe allergy to palm based oils making it difficult to shop in the grocery store. Between gluten exposure, compromised gut bacteria and inflammation due to a poor consumed fat ratio, I'm sure she could take steps to improve her malfunctioning immune system.
LDL is not the 'cause' of heart disease. It never was. Damage to cells is the cause. Trans fats damage cell which mistake them for saturated fats. Oxidative stress is another mechanism.
LDL raises because it is being generated to transport materials to the sites of damage for repair. Persistent raised LDL is a sign of persistent damage, from things like oxidation, glycation and excess exposure to Miley Cyrus. LDL raising is a response to cellular damage, not a cause. This is why LDL suppressing statins have failed spectacularly to improve human health even while it reduces LDL.
Please eat trans fats until you die, or go and whinge about them doing something actually bad. There's plenty of bad things to complain about. This is not one of them.
Citation required. Once sucrose is cleaved in to fructose and glucose a few ms after hitting the stomach, there is no chemical difference between HFCS and Sucrose.
An natural, whole foods, organic fructose molecule cleaved from sucrose behaves bizarrely similarly to any other fructose molecule.
The additional harm, if any, is in the evidence HFCS gives that the food producer is willing to go to any lengths to cut costs. So it reflects on the whole process.
Trans fats appear naturally in small amounts in things like cream.
Cream, being mostly saturated, zero carb and choc full of fat soluble vitamins is a very healthy food.
There is plenty of reasonable hypothesis that the small amount of trans fats in milkfat has a hormetic effect. It is the bulk trans fats in engineered foods that is toxic.
I don't dispute that some corporations mislead. But they usually do that through remaining silent and/or saying ambiguous things so that people will draw the wrong conclusion. Look at prescription drug marketing for example.
There are limits to what we can know. So it is correct to say Apple claimed X, but Y may or may not be true, where X is independent from Y.
I wonder at the telecom corps that did receive NSLs, where many people must have been in the know, but none of them fessed up.
Why do you want the statement to answer a different question? If Apple says it didn't receive a request for information under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, then you know exactly what that means.
The AC was saying that he/she/it didn't buy the truth of the statement. I argued that big corporations don't lie in that manner because there are strong reasons not to. This has no bearing on answers to different questions.
As I remember from spending the first 30 years of my life living in Britain, it was, and still is called Bonfire Night by British people in Britain. The Guy Fawkes thing is British history and anti-Catholicism has pretty much nothing to do with the sentiment of the occasion across the whole of Britain, excepting some communities in Northern Ireland, where the Protestant/Catholic thing is still an issue.
As with every other country, there is a day where people let fireworks off and set fire to things. In the USA it is July 4th. In the UK it is Nov 5th. For anyone who had their childhood in Britain, Bonfire night is associated with home made toffee, parkin, setting bonfires, lighting fireworks and waving sparklers around. The historical aspects are encoded in tradition, not sectarian hate. The Guy on top of the bonfire is there because that's what people do. A bonfire is incomplete without a Guy. Inertia is a strong force.
The history bit is addressed in schools. Burning the Guy was an appeal to political correctness specifically because the anti Catholicism of burning a pope's effigy no longer fit in with the dynamic between protestants and Catholics which stopped being a thing a long time ago. They stopped burning effigies of the pope a long time ago. So Guy got to fill in the role, even though he was hung, drawn and quartered.
I do. Big corporations don't lie when they make simple statements like that. It's not the way they operate. It would be rather useful if all organizations for which this was true would make such a statement. Then we could work out who did get the mandatory anal probe.
Slashdot Mirror
>There is no known minimally required level of LDL for health. People who carry mutations in both copies of the PCSK9 gene contain no detectable levels of serum LDL and are healthy with very low levels of heart disease.
Where did you get that from? People with no LDL are dead.
People who have the type of mutation on PCSK9 to enhance LDL receptor activity on cell surfaces enjoy greatly reduced rates of heart disease because there's less LDL running around in the blood (it's being more efficiently taken up by cells) and so less serum LDL => less LDL oxidation => less bad stuff. But the notion that there is none is flat out wrong. The same amount of LDL is reaching the cells, it's just taking less time to get there.
The numbers are given in the second entry in a google search for PCSK9 mutations. 35% difference in takeup. Not 100% as your wrong statement implies.
>That is a complete and total lie.
No it isn't. You may have noticed how people have become less healthy as they removed saturated fats from their diet. You may however missed the vast body of evidence that has replaced the crappy epidemiological evidence that wrongly implicated saturated fats in the 70s.
> the overwhelming consensus is that saturated fat is bad for you
No. This is the thoroughly debunked consensus. It is not longer consensus.
> The odd exception is coconut oil for reasons that still aren't fully clear yet.
It's ketogenic. The metabolic pathways that make this true are fully understood.
>My advice is to simply pick whatever option has the least of both
I will not be taking your advice. I'll go with the science myself. I'll stick to fats that aren't trans and don't oxidize at the first sign of oxygen.
Yes. Still fat. Less so, but life sucks like that.
You seem to be reading very different things into those books.
The abstract of the article agrees with what I said. Read it. The cleaving happens in the brush border. The brush border is on the inside of your stomach. There's no different metabolic pathway for the post cleaved fructose+glucose from either source.
Taubes rightly points to examples of peoples (like the Pima) who's health turned to shit after they were displaced and were given grains in place of a hunter gatherer lifestyle. HFCS didn't even exist back then.
No one has produced evidence that the 4-5% different in ratio makes any difference in the metabolic response.
No. Both sugar and HFCS are equally bad.
I had to find my way. Meat with green veggies is fine. Cream is fine. Eggs cooked with cream and cheese are excellent. Fermented foods are fine. Eating lard in isolation is not fine, it's gross.
Some things appear to be an acquired taste. I can eat butter straight up, but it took some adaption. Now I enjoy it.
If I eat carbs I put on weight. So YMMV.
Ignorance is no barrier to Slashdot.
>I've been told that trans fats are very bad and saturated fats are bad.
No, bulk trans fats are very bad, small amounts appear to be fine. Saturated fats are very, very healthy.
>What I've wondered is: if I'm going to eat something bad, and one of my options has a lot less saturated fat but a little more trans fat, how do I decide if this option is the lesser of the evils.
Easy, eat the saturated fat.
>At what rate should you trade saturated fats for trans fats. I've tried googling, but no luck.
Eat as much saturated fat as you want. Eat trans fats in the small amounts that appear in dairy products. Stop eating when you are satiated.
>most things that are particularly tasty are not low-carb.
You do know that fat is the most effective transport for flavor right?
>Food processors will change over to oils like coconut, palm kernel oil, and animal based oils because they can be solid at room temperature,
Yes. This would be an enormous improvement.
>My wife has a severe allergy to palm based oils making it difficult to shop in the grocery store.
Between gluten exposure, compromised gut bacteria and inflammation due to a poor consumed fat ratio, I'm sure she could take steps to improve her malfunctioning immune system.
>There are a few significant health benefits to nicotine.
It protects you from the diseases of old age.
That paper has no bearing on the relative toxicity of sucrose vs. HFCS.
>You could at least read the first line of the FA.
This is Slashdot, not a peer reviewed journal.
You can. It's not hard.
No. 200. Used to be 245 until I went of a high fat diet.
The Wiki article and TFA are wrong.
LDL is not the 'cause' of heart disease. It never was. Damage to cells is the cause. Trans fats damage cell which mistake them for saturated fats. Oxidative stress is another mechanism.
LDL raises because it is being generated to transport materials to the sites of damage for repair. Persistent raised LDL is a sign of persistent damage, from things like oxidation, glycation and excess exposure to Miley Cyrus. LDL raising is a response to cellular damage, not a cause. This is why LDL suppressing statins have failed spectacularly to improve human health even while it reduces LDL.
Please eat trans fats until you die, or go and whinge about them doing something actually bad. There's plenty of bad things to complain about. This is not one of them.
>It is far more harmful and sugar
Citation required.
Once sucrose is cleaved in to fructose and glucose a few ms after hitting the stomach, there is no chemical difference between HFCS and Sucrose.
An natural, whole foods, organic fructose molecule cleaved from sucrose behaves bizarrely similarly to any other fructose molecule.
The additional harm, if any, is in the evidence HFCS gives that the food producer is willing to go to any lengths to cut costs. So it reflects on the whole process.
Trans fats appear naturally in small amounts in things like cream.
Cream, being mostly saturated, zero carb and choc full of fat soluble vitamins is a very healthy food.
There is plenty of reasonable hypothesis that the small amount of trans fats in milkfat has a hormetic effect. It is the bulk trans fats in engineered foods that is toxic.
I don't dispute that some corporations mislead. But they usually do that through remaining silent and/or saying ambiguous things so that people will draw the wrong conclusion. Look at prescription drug marketing for example.
There are limits to what we can know. So it is correct to say Apple claimed X, but Y may or may not be true, where X is independent from Y.
I wonder at the telecom corps that did receive NSLs, where many people must have been in the know, but none of them fessed up.
Why do you want the statement to answer a different question?
If Apple says it didn't receive a request for information under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, then you know exactly what that means.
The AC was saying that he/she/it didn't buy the truth of the statement. I argued that big corporations don't lie in that manner because there are strong reasons not to. This has no bearing on answers to different questions.
That depends on whether or not you are a window.
As I remember from spending the first 30 years of my life living in Britain, it was, and still is called Bonfire Night by British people in Britain. The Guy Fawkes thing is British history and anti-Catholicism has pretty much nothing to do with the sentiment of the occasion across the whole of Britain, excepting some communities in Northern Ireland, where the Protestant/Catholic thing is still an issue.
As with every other country, there is a day where people let fireworks off and set fire to things. In the USA it is July 4th. In the UK it is Nov 5th. For anyone who had their childhood in Britain, Bonfire night is associated with home made toffee, parkin, setting bonfires, lighting fireworks and waving sparklers around. The historical aspects are encoded in tradition, not sectarian hate. The Guy on top of the bonfire is there because that's what people do. A bonfire is incomplete without a Guy. Inertia is a strong force.
The history bit is addressed in schools. Burning the Guy was an appeal to political correctness specifically because the anti Catholicism of burning a pope's effigy no longer fit in with the dynamic between protestants and Catholics which stopped being a thing a long time ago. They stopped burning effigies of the pope a long time ago. So Guy got to fill in the role, even though he was hung, drawn and quartered.
>I buy that as much as I buy Apple products.
I do. Big corporations don't lie when they make simple statements like that. It's not the way they operate.
It would be rather useful if all organizations for which this was true would make such a statement. Then we could work out who did get the mandatory anal probe.
Couldn't they just report 1/opacity?