progressiveman1

I posted them above whenever you're ready.

These studies are all from this site: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_2.html All the graphs on the website. 1. Framingham Heart Study: they measured cholesterol intake and compared it with blood cholesterol. As Table I shows, although subjects consumed cholesterol over a wide range, there was little or no difference in the levels of cholesterol in their blood and, thus, no relationship between the amount of cholesterol eaten and levels of blood cholesterol was found. (Although it is interesting that women who had the highest levels of cholesterol in their blood were ones who had eaten the least cholesterol.) Next, the scientists studied intakes of saturated fats but again they could find no relation. There was still no relation when they studied total calorie intake. They then considered the possibility that something was masking the effects of diet, but no other factor made the slightest difference. After twenty-two years of research, the researchers concluded: "There is, in short, no suggestion of any relation between diet and the subsequent development of CHD in the study group." On Christmas Eve, 1997, after a further twenty-seven years, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) carried a follow-up report that showed that dietary saturated fat reduced strokes. As these tend to affect older men than CHD, they wondered if a fatty diet was causing those in the trial to die of CHD before they had a stroke. But the researchers discount this, saying: "This hypothesis, however, depends on the presence of a strong direct association of fat intake with coronary heart disease. Since we found no such association, competing mortality from coronary heart disease is very unlikely to explain our results." In other words, after forty-nine years of research, they are still saying that they can find no relation between a fatty diet and heart disease. Here's the site explaining the details of the Framingham Heart Study: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/about/framingham/ 2. Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial One of the largest and most demanding medical studies ever performed on humans, The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (known in the medical world, by its initials, as MR. FIT) involved 28 medical centres and 250 researchers and cost $115,000,000. The researchers screened 361,662 men and deliberately chose subjects who were at very high risk to ensure that they achieved a statistically significant result. They cut cholesterol consumption by forty-two percent, saturated fat consumption by twenty-eight percent and total calories by twenty-one percent. Yet even then they didn't succeed. Blood cholesterol levels did fall, but by only a modest amount and, more importantly, coronary heart disease was unaffected. Its originators refer to the results as "disappointing" and say in their conclusions: "The overall results do not show a beneficial effect on Coronary Heart Disease or total mortality from this multifactor intervention." Here's the site explaining the details of the trial: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/deca/de...tions/mrfit.htm 3. The Tecumseh Study attempted to correlate blood cholesterol levels measured one day with the amounts of fats eaten the previous day - but found none. Interestingly, Table II demonstrates that the people who ate the least cholesterol had the highest levels of blood cholesterol. Although not looking for it, this study also found that blood cholesterol levels were quite independent of whether the dietary fats were saturated or unsaturated. Thus another 'diet-heart' hypothesis, that only saturated fats are to blame, was invalidated. More details: http://www.thincs.org/Malcolm.choltheory.htm 4. WHO European Coronary Prevention Study The results of the World Health Organisation's European Coronary Prevention Study were called "depressing" because once again no correlation between fats and heart disease was found. They had cut saturated fats down to only eight percent of calorie intake daily, yet in the UK section there were more deaths in the intervention group than in the control group. 5. The North Karelia Project: North Karelia, which had Finland's highest rates of heart disease, was compared with neighbouring Kuopio in The North Karelia Project. In North Karelia, risk factors were cut by seventeen percent over the period of the study. As Table III shows, in North Karelia there was a reduction in both CHD mortality and total mortality. Table III also shows, however, that in Kuopio, the control group, where there were no restrictions, there was an even bigger decline in both CHD and total mortality. These figures suggest that adopting a 'healthy' lifestyle may actually have inhibited the decline in heart disease. They certainly give it no support.

The first study suggests that those specific refined carbohydrates are the cause of heart disease. None of those studies show that a high saturated fat/cholesterol diet is better than a low one. I'll post those today and tomorrow. What the ones I've already posted show is that high amounts of saturated fat/cholesterol aren't the cause of heart disease in the past. I'm linking refined carbohydrates to diabetes because that is one of my other claims.

These are just a few studies that Dr. Atkins lists in his book, "New Diet Revolution." Dr. Atkins summarizes this study: "In the crucial sixty-year time span between 1910 and 1970, when coronary heart disease escalated from a yet-to-be-recognized problem to the killer of more than half the population, this is what happened the America's diet: The intake of animal fat and butter actually dropped a little, while the intake of cholesterol was not changed. Meanwhile, the intake of refined carbohydrates(mainly sugar, corn syrup, and white flour) escalated by sixty percent." -Enns, C.W. "Trends in Food and Nutrient Intakes by Adults:NFCS 1977-78, CSFII 1989-91 and CSFII 1994-95," Family Economics and Nutrition Review, 10(4), 1997. Dr. Atkins: "Only a few decades ago, the Frenchman with his butter, cheese, and goose-liver diet had a heart disease rate sixty percent lower than his American peers. The Frenchwoman did even better- she had the lowest heart disease in the western world. The French also have far lower rates of obesity than Americans do, despite the fact that thier diet is higher in fat. They eat comparable amounts of meat and fish, four times the butter and twice as much cheese as Americans. What does it all mean? Could it by any chance have anything to do with the fact that the per capita consumption of sugar in the U.S. was five times that of France?" -Dolnick, E. "Le Paradoxe Francais," Hippocrates. May/June 1990. Dr. Atkins: "High insulin levels have been shown to correlate with high levels of triglycerides and low levels of 'good' HDL cholesterol." -Parks, E. and Hellerstein, M. "Carbohydrate-Induced Hypertriacyl-glycerolemia: Historical Perspective and Review of Biological Mechanisms," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 7, 2000. -McLaughlin, T. "Carbohydrate-Induced Hypertriglyceridemia: An Insight into the Link Between Plasma Insulin and Triglyceride Concentrations," Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 85(9), 2000. Dr. Atkins: "Using data from several epidemiological studies, Dr. B. Balkau found links between high glucose levels and mortality in thousands of men whose medical histories had been followed for two decades." -Balkau, B. "High Blood Glucose Concentration is a risk Factor for Mortality in Middle-aged Non-Diabetic Men: 20 Year Follow-up in the Whitehall Study, the Paris Prospective Study, and the Helsinki Policeman Study," Diabetes Care, 3, 1998. Dr. Atkins: "Even in childhood, a high insulin level corresponded to higher triglyceride levels and higher VLDL("bad") cholesterol." -Jiang, X. "Association of Fasting Insulin Level with Serum Lipid and Lipoprotein Levels in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults: The Bogalusa Heart Study," Archives of Internal Medicine, 155, 1995.

Gary Taubes' book, Good Calories, Bad Calories seems to have put together a lot of the information I have seen in his book. Dr. Atkins wrote a book called The New Diet Revolution, which covers the benefits of saturated fats and explains the dangers of high insulin production(the processed foods I listed previously cause that). Dr. Atkins lists probably 100 studies. Insulin is the major problem with these foods, so I suggest reading some books on that topic. Also, the other reason why I don't believe saturated fats and cholesterol are harmful is because of the lack of proof. Like Heresiarch said, the Lipid Hypothesis is the claim. If you support the claim, I would like to know why.

Where's your proof that saturated fat and cholesterol is unhealthy? Where is your proof that processed foods such as white flour, refined sugar, hydrogenated oils are safe?

Link 1 shows several studies under the heading "Studies that challenge the Lipid Hypothesis", and on the second page of the link it lists the "Benefits of Saturated Fats" and benefits of cholesterol in "What about cholesterol?" It explains why hydrogenated oils are toxic to humans under "Hydrogenation." Link 3 explains the results of a study widely known as the American Paradox. If you want more information on it just search "american paradox." Link 1 goes into detail about hydrogenation. I suggest doing a search of your own on the topics if you don't like the links I provided.

Both. I have seen lack of experimental evidence showing that eating saturated fat and cholesterol is harmful to humans and a substantial amount of experimental evidence showing they contribute to good health. Some of the largest and most expensive clinical trials have shown that saturated fat and cholesterol is not unhealthy for human consumption. For me to believe these things are bad for me, I'm going to need more than a few government organizations telling me so, which is pretty much all I've seen. If you have evidence, please show me. 1. Here are several studies in support of my claim: http://www.mercola.com/2002/aug/17/saturated_fat1.htm 2. A study: http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-managemen...s-heart-healthy 3. The American Paradox(I suggest searching using keyword "american paradox" for plenty of information: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/5/1102 4. Explained here is heart disease, cancer, diabetes became much more prevalent when White flour, refined sugar, hydrogentated oils(trans fat) can be shown to cause heart disease and cancer. 1. "Over the last fifty years since the introduction of hydrogenated oils, this disease has increased over 1000%": http://www.dldewey.com/hydroil.htm 2. Research done here explains this trend: http://trusted.md/blog/vreni_gurd/2007/04/...rstood_nutrient 3. Studies and information: http://www.newstarget.com/white_flour.html 4. Do a search on the topic and you will find plenty. I think the main negative consequence that arises from refined carbs is it causes a high insulin spike in the body and also gets free radicals in the body. So my guess is whichever is less prone to those, but I don't know the specifics.

BogAl just gave the answer: no. It's fine if you're not playing up to your market value as long as you are playing the best you can at the time.

I didn't mean for this to be a weight loss thread. My topic is that a high saturated fat and cholesterol diet is better than one with a low amount. And also that the main cause of heart disease and diabetes is from eating processed foods(white flour, hydrogenated oils, refined sugar, etc), not from eating saturated fat and cholesterol.

I've been researching whether eating saturated fat and cholesterol is really the main contributors to heart disease. I have found some good websites explaining why they actually contribute to good health and not the other way around. I suggest everyone inform themselves on the issue because it could be critical. For this thread, I want people to give their opinion on the matter and/or explain why the information presented in these websites is true or false. Multiple studies: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_2.html Saturated Fat: http://www.health-report.co.uk/saturated_f...th_benefits.htm Saturated Fat/Cholesterol: http://www.mercola.com/2002/feb/23/vegetar...sm_myths_06.htm Cholesterol Myth: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_1.html General: http://www.biblelife.org/saturated_fat.htm I suggest browsing around on these sites and others. This information goes against the mainstream scientists and organizations, and we all know how often they're wrong. I think it's proven here.

I'm not saying it benefits me by getting angry at the fact they did a subpar job of teaching me, but how can you make peace with it when it is such a serious matter that they failed at and severely negatively affected me? I won't make a judgement on most parents because all I'm aggrevated about is how lack of parenting directly affected my life. I know my parents knew at least some of the correct basic values(hard work, having a purpose, etc) and I don't think they made much of an effort to pass those values on to me. That means it is negligence, not ignorance.

Sorry, I didn't mean to make it look like I was summarizing you. Those were my opinions.

Yes it does. I am this way now with no thanks to them. It was only by chance that I learned the proper values while my parents have had a lot of the knowledge the whole time I've been alive. Essentially, they watched me live in the world without trying to guide me in the right direction. Unforgivable. What's so hard about trying to teach values to your kids?

Yeah, exactly. Why even have children if you're not even going to give it the proper effort? My parents never tried to teach me anything. If I made a mistake, they would just yell at me without giving an explanation on how to fix it. If I had homework I didn't feel like doing, they would do it and I would watch tv. Other people have brought up individual responsibility. You can either understand individual responsibilty if it's taught to you or you learn it from personal experience. The only reason I understand it now is because I read Rand's books and then I fully understood it after I moved out of my parents house and supported myself, not relying on anybody else any longer. There are ways for parents to teach their kids individual responsibility, but my parents chose not to put in the effort. That's unforgivable, although apologizing may sooth the anger a bit.

It was in Judgement Day. Nathaniel Branden said Ayn Rand always seemed reluctant to accept evolution as being true because she hoped humans weren't linked with all the other species; that humans are more special in that sense. That's what Branden said at least.

Looking back, I don't think either of my parents tried very hard to teach me how to make decisions. They were very passive when it came to teaching me values, and as a result from that I was very confused during my teenage years. I'm bitter towards both my parents for similar but seperate reasons. My mom thinks decisons should mostly be based on what your approval will be from others- she's not much of a thinker. She forced me to go to church earlier and she never explained to me what a good man is. I feel less hostile towards my mom only because she doesn't even know the right values herself, so it makes sense that she wasn't more aggressive in teaching me how to live. My dad, however, I now see has a stronger grasp of how to live a successful life. Although I don't agree with all his decisions, he understands that each person is responsible for himself and that he shouldn't make any sacrifices. He knows that a strong work ethic is key to being happy and he makes most of his decisions using logic and reason. I admit, even though our relationship is finally coming together somewhat, I always feel anger towards him whenever I think about how he raised me. He was so passive in teaching me any values, he never made it clear to me what a successful man is. In fact, the only time he ever became aggressive with me was when he told me to get off his precious lawn, or to stop being physically active in the house, or aggrevating me when I made a mistake without explaining how to correct it. His lack of dedication to teach me the right values seems like an unforgivable act and I will never fully respect him because of it. The only reason I know how to live my life now is because I happen by complete chance to find out about Ayn Rand. That aggrevates me when parents neglect their responsibility as parents and their kids wind up utterly confused. Does anybody feel the same way towards their parents?

On September 18, I went to the gym to cancel my gym membership. It was a 12 month minimum contract and I decided to terminate it early, which means a $58 cancellation fee. I knew this and accepted this. When I was there, I explained to the manager why I was cancelling it, gave him my membership card, and I signed the termination papers. He went to the other side of the counter and assisted other customers there, so I assumed our transaction was complete and I left. Today on the 21st, the manager just got a hold of me after trying to get in contact with me the past couple of days. He told me that I didn't pay the up-front $58 cancellation charge at our last visit. I told him that I didn't know it was an up-front fee and I thought they just charge it to my debit card which they have been charging the monthly dues to. He said no, and that since it is now past the 20th of the month that I now have to pay for October as well. This infuriated me, because I had full intention of cancelling my membership on the 18th, and the only reason why I left at the time I did was because I was under the impression that our transaction was complete. But he's still going to charge me for October because he claims he told me it was an up-front fee(which I never heard him say). Do I have a right to the money he's trying to get from me for October's fees?

Sorry I don't remember every sentence you have written. You'll have to find a way to forgive me for making such a grave mistake.

Why does MLB need those few teams that can't support themselves from their own efforts?

I didn't realize you were coming strictly from a fan's perspective. But still, why do you find it worthy to discuss if you know that those things won't and shouldn't change from a business perspective? Only because I have more respect for a team that can win with a low payroll. If a team can break through that hurdle it must mean they truly know how to run a team, as opposed to the Yankees who can get away with more mistakes because of their larger money pot. Yeah, we're in agreement on that.

The owners of the teams would never agree to that. Each game they make a large amount of money, which is why they were the ones who expanded the season from 154 to 162 games a few decades ago. But from an economic viewpoint(which is really all that matters in the practical sense), the postseason has such a large demand that the teams in it rake in a significant amount of money. Plus, it's the best attraction to draw fans to the game. So, there's no way postseason will be eliminated. You're saying each team isn't filled with players who were born in that city. So? If you weren't much of a fan, you would be content choosing a favorite team that way. But the intelligent and devoted fan typically likes to choose a favorite team based on their personal projections of who will be the best. Personally, I like the Oakland A's because despite having a low payroll, they still manage to consistently be contenders.

Even in the MLB situation, owners want their league competitors to go out of business if they are losing money because of them. If a system like revenue sharing is causing the successful owners to lose money even while creating more parity, it would be in the owner's self-interest to try to stop the R.S. system. And if a few of the worst teams go out of business, the surviving owners will greatly benefit because they don't have to worry so much about so-called competitive imbalance any more. So I think it's wise to keep Feldblum's advice in the back of your head, that a R.S. system destroys business. That means it causes problems such as lost profits, lack of motivation, disgruntled workers, etc etc, and if a system creates more problems than it solves it is bad no matter in competing businesses or in one single league such as MLB.

You implied an opinion on it. Re-read(and maybe re-re-read) your previous comment. It's obvious that you implied there is at least some parity in MLB, so it makes COMPLETE sense that I asked if you were against revenue sharing. That's a good idea. If you lack the knowledge, it's better not to have a firm opinion on the matter.

Are you suggesting there should or shouldn't be a revenue sharing system in Baseball? At times you hinted "yes" and other times "no". You do think steroids should be banned though, don't you?