Posted on 09/17/2019 3:47:58 AM PDT by Libloather
You never even identify who the "AHA" is. Sounds like you have some burr under your saddle or axe to grind with whoever they are. You've been following their cholesterol boogieman for decades now and they won't quit. What does that even mean?
And besides, what do you care whether I understand or agree with your argument or not? If my cholesterol at 115 is endangering my life, that would be one thing. But I have had low cholesterol for decades. When is this supposed "other" cholesterol range you're pushing, going to affect my health?
At age 72, there's not much time left to prove your theory that my low cholesterol is somehow a health risk or even significant to me. Besides, the propensity to have high cholesterol is mainly genetic or hereditary in nature. My whole family has low cholesterol.
Not much I can do about my cholesterol level at this stage anyway not matter whether I'm right or you are.
“And besides, what do you care whether I understand or agree with your argument or not?”
I though FR had “discussions”. But if you get right down to it, I don’t give a rat’s rear end about your cholesterol. I don’t know you and you don’t know me and I don’t care if someone goes full vegan or full carnivore or wants to eat pumpkins 3 times a day.
But...since you are not the only one who reads a thread, and since some medical types will insist on statins for anyone whose total cholesterol goes above 200, I posted research showing the other side. Just as a discussion.
Your stuff was above my pay grade. Too much inside medical baseball for me to understand.
My opinion is that people won't get your message unless you take it out of the technical jargon of medicine and lay it out in plain English.
There's a program series I've been watching on Netflix about the people who started the FBI profiling unit and invented the term "serial killer" back in the 60s.
It's an interesting program but the guy who came up with the idea of interviewing killers to compose profiles is super smart but no very user friendly.
Whenever he gets up in front of a group of agents to explain the program to them, they all roll their eyes and wander off somewhere else, leaving him wondering why everybody else wasn't as interested in this subject as he was.
He had the knowledge and experience but not the presentation. He's too technical and boring. So it's left to his partner on the team to tell the story in such a way as not bore the agents and keep them interested. He made it more human. Relatable.
And that reminds me of your situation. If there is new research and information about cholesterol levels that differs from the past and you want to get it out there, don't bore your audience with technical articles they won't read. Cull the facts and do a vanity post to get a discussion going.
I read vegans are pissed that some chain restaurant is using lemons that have been waxed with wax made from insect goo.
It’s a mental disorder.
So, you like Irish Coffee too?
LOL - good one.
Oh for Pete’s sake, Diet for a Small Planet came out in 1971 as a vegetarian cookbook.
Not this same stuff again!!
I know they recycle, do they have to recycle old discredited ideas too?
6.54 kg (14.4 pounds) of bovine meat some 316 times more greenhouse gas intensive than pulses
What the heck is a pulse?
FWIW, beef is at least 360x more energy efficient than plants when consuming a diet. This is why eating meat can keep one alive longer than foraging for fodder.
The numbers indicate beef is more greenhouse gas friendly than vegan diets after one runs the numbers of the complete metabolism chain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.