LOOK AT WHAT THE GRAPH IS SHOWING.
LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.
WHAT IS THE ACTUAL DATA SHOWING?

You tell me for yourself which line is showing the higher or lower rate for mortality?
It looks to me as if Sally Fallon is in the 25~29.9 BMI group I think putting her in the obese category is simply wrong.
Those who are just overweigt (not obese) have a better life expectancy than the red line those with BMI below 18'5

There doesn't look to be a significant difference between the blue/green lines.

thras, I don't know why your rude attitude is allowed on this forum. There is no excuse for being crass and rude. A child acts that way because they are immature but you are beyond childhood. So claim proper decorum and you'll gain the respect you deserve.

I disagree with this statement.

I would suggest replacing the cholesterol biomarker with that of homocysteine.

I am not a vegetarian or vegan (yet) however, realize this is the only way to go since enormous amounts of natural resorces are wasted on lower life forms. This includes water, replacing rain forests with soy crops for feed, millions of methane producing animals, etc..

I agree with alot (not all) of what Gary Null states, and can say without doubt he is correct when he says vegans are healthier and live longer than meat-eaters. However, he also states vegans must supplement with B12, and carnosine, and goes on to list several other supplements that are needed by everyone.

One other point that Gary states over and over is that anyone who is overweight cannot be healthy.

Vegetarians need taurine also, but I agree, If you do it correctly, vegetarianism is much better.

and in the other corner.


From William Campbell Douglass II, M.D. site
Nutty researchers want YOU on statins NOW!

Think you're healthy? Well, Oxford researchers have news for you: You're NOT healthy, and you need to start taking meds pronto.

That's right. There's no such thing as drug-free aging anymore because these researchers claim everyone needs to take statins once they hit 50.

And this means YOU.

Not at risk for heart problems? Take 'em anyway!

Worried about the side effects, like diabetes and crippling muscle pain? Stop being such a sissy!

Don't even have high cholesterol? Shut up and take your meds!

Oxford researchers claim their new study shows that statins can save thousands of lives if everyone will just put up with the side effects -- which, along with muscle pain and diabetes, can include everything from memory loss and depression to vision problems and sexual dysfunction.

But before you rush out to fill that prescription, take a closer look at what's being billed as a "huge new study."

Turns out it's neither huge nor new nor even a real study -- because it's a meta-analysis, aka the best way to "prove" a point by pre-selecting data that'll help you reach your pre-determined conclusion.

In this case, they chose 27 of the most industry-friendly studies on statins they could have possibly found.

Need proof? Take a look at this interesting statement from the analysis:

"The authors reported that most of the trials in this report were supported by research grants from the pharmaceutical industry."

Why would they do such a thing? Hmmm... d'ya think this next sentence might've had something to do with it?

"Some members of the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaboration writing committee have received reimbursement of costs to participate in scientific meetings from the pharmaceutical industry. Two CTT writing committee members also received honoraria from Solvay for lectures related to these studies."

So the drug industry funded the studies and paid off the researchers -- and they just so happened to find that everyone should be taking these meds.

Gee, what a coincidence!

Fact is, you don't need statins for "high" cholesterol and you certainly don't need them for "normal" or "low" cholesterol, either.

Bad research on good cholesterol

One little flawed study comes along and finds that maybe HDL doesn't prevent heart problems, and suddenly everyone is down on the so-called "good" cholesterol.

But once you see the details on this one, you'll wonder why anyone is even giving it the time of day -- because the study was botched from start to finish.

The researchers didn't choose two groups of people with similar heart risk and then raise levels of HDL cholesterol in one of them.

Nope. That's a little too much like work, since it can't be done with drugs and has to be done with diet.

So instead, they just looked at a group of people with genetic factors that cause them to have higher-than-normal-HDL levels naturally. And it turned out these people had the same heart risks as everyone else.

Big whoop -- this proves exactly nothing, because the notion that genetically high HDL levels automatically come with health benefits is flawed from the get-go.

That same argument implies that someone with naturally high HDL levels can eat all the KFC they want -- and drink a quart of soda a day (Why not? You're genetically protected, right?) -- and have the same lower risk of heart problems as someone who earns their high HDL levels through a healthy diet.

Cholesterol is good -- but it ain't THAT good!

And when I say "cholesterol," I mean both HDL and LDL -- because despite what you've heard, there's no such thing as "good" and "bad."

Forget trying to remember which is which and just focus on your TOTAL cholesterol. Keep it between 200 and 300, naturally, and you'll have nothing to worry about since those "high" levels can actually PROTECT your heart.

If that's not enough, cholesterol can also prevent cancer, ward off dementia, boost your sex life and even slash your risk of dying.

Want to learn more about the benefits of high cholesterol? Read this!

Giving my all for cholesterol,

William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
They say only if you run...jump...swim...bike...
eat less fat...and lower your cholesterol right now can you keep your heart healthy!

Hogwash!

How many over weight vegetarians have I known.... lets see... not enough fingers and toes to count them on.

Oh, and a diet that requries supplementation for basics is not a natural diet. What would people do without pills and shots? How did they ever manage... well of course they were depleted and paid whatever consequences that came.

But of course we know that the human body was meant to be vegetarian.. as god ordained and fanatics state and environmentalists decree... because we all have access to supplements... part of the natural evolution eh?

__________________

What makes this such a sensitive topic is we all care about health and make food choices based on creating health. No one wants to be wrong. There is scientific evidence supporting the benefits on each side. This debate is getting to be like a debate on religion or politics. If we had all the answers clearly laid out then we could all agree but there's so much controversy or if you want to look at it another way, there is always evidence to find that supports whichever belief system you have. We've got to start looking at what we do agree on......decreasing chemicals, sugar consumption, transfats, etc. while increasing antioxidants, amino acids, omega 3's, pure water, minerals, vitamins, etc..

1) Post 21 you said how rude and uncalled for it was to make an issue of people's weight and yet here you are...
Maybe those people, as you yourself said, had eating disorders or hormonal imbalances.

2) I take a MV every day as 'insurance'. No matter how natural and healthy your diet, the nutrient content of the food is directly related to the richness of the land it was grown on.
Thanks to industrialized farming farmland has suffered depletion of topsoil and loss of what might one term the natural richness and goodness of the soil, rendering the land impoverished in terms of nutrients.

3) The human body was meant to be vegetarian!
All well and good to sneer at vegetarianism, you were one yourself for years till you fell off the 'compassion wagon'.

__________________

....It is our deeds, the accumulated acts of goodness and kindness, that define us and ultimately are the true measure of our worth. Service is the coin of the spirit.

https://holy-lance.blogspot.com

That is funny, here is a link to the exact post on page 2 of this thread where you make excuses for why the head of the WAPF Foundation, Sally Fallon, is fat. You also made justifications or excuses why we cannot judge that fad guru scammer Eades drinks alcohol while passing himself as an authority and figurehead on health matters.

It seems you have very low standards for people who advocate to eat lots of animal products and position themselves so that they make lots of money from passing off bad advice. But you are very hyper-critical of anecdotal vegetarians that we cannot cross-check. It is possible to became fat as a vegetarian, especially if you consume alot of milk, cheese or junk food. Since you are so enamored with the battle of the bulge, on a diet where 90% of food calories come from whole food, plant based sources, it is almost impossible to become overweight. Instead you want to defend diets(Atkins, Paleo) that promote prolonged states of ketosis to get around the obvious fact that prolonged consumption of a decent proportion of animal sources for your calories correlates greatly to obesity as an outcome!

Carnism the ideology behind eating meat is about dominance, social status, peculiar human created hierarchies interposed on the animal kingdom, etc. Thus and you don't see North Americans eating local animals either. What they eat is are the few select animals that the European imperialist conquerors considered as food animals: pig, cattle, chicken, etc. How unnatural is that?

Meat cannot be eaten raw healthy, infact that is the most unhealthy way to eat it. And to cook it properly you have to cause numerous disease and aging promoting compounds. How natural is it that meat can only be eaten in ways that are overall disease promoting? Meanwhile most plant foods provide more nutrition, anti-oxidants, many are overall disease preventive and restore health. I will take the dietary advice that leads to longer lifespan, less of a carbon footprint and greater ethics. Even by your own criteria, your diet is actually far more unnatural using the one-sided criteria you fail to apply.

When Gary Null stated (several times over the past few years) overweight people cannot possibly be healthy, he was not refering to vegetarians, but to people in general.

Are we meant to be vegetarian? I don't know, however, I can state without a doubt that eating meat several times per day will eventually cause disease...and its not just the hormones, chemicals, and antibiotics in the meat. The very fact that meat takes much longer to digest thus remains in the digestive tract for many hours, putrifies, clings to intestines, etc... is reasonable to assume damage is being done, however, that is a totally different topic for debate.

What I find interesting is the difference between animal saturated fats and vegetable saturated fats. These are so different, they should be two separate topics. One is good while the other is not so good, and I get a kick out of doctors who state coconut oil is not healthy because it is solid at room temperature, and they don't want anything solid in their blood.

What a joke that is since body temp is 98.6 degrees F, and coconut oil would never remain in a solid form at this temp, in fact, any temp above 78 degrees would melt the oil, but that just shows how far away from truth these people are.

If coconut oil plugged arteries, I would have been dead years ago, and as far as eating meat goes, I would suggest smaller portions with a large salad and more veggies, and would also suggest not overcooking it.

...And for those who are worried about cholesterol and their doctor has them taking crestor or some other statin, keep in mind that most of your brain is made from cholesterol, so taking drugs to lower cholesterol while going on a cholesterol reduced diet will cause severe mental health issues.

Cholesterol is not the problem, lack of education is..

Ted, you would do us all a favor if you just directed us to the handful of fad diet blogs you follow and source your posts from. I know the authors and gurus of every fad diet like Atkins or Paleo are totally not qualified to interpret such data, and I know I don't have that background either. But what I do know is that such studies have conclusions and abstracts written more for laypeople and that the authors of the actual study say that obese people live shorter lifespans, but still cost more in terms of medical expenditure because they have more health problems.

Now you want to defend a quack like Sally Fallon, who is not only quite over-weight, but while being so deems herself fit to be a president of a like-minded quack Price Foundation despite having no proper background:
Probably the Paleo, Atkins or Price blog you sourced from, the blog author is just as unqualified and does not have the background to interpret that graph either, which is why they wanted to popularize it: to cause confusion so their fad diet does not look so bad.

You should look into entropy. The more calories or energy your body expends, the faster it breaks down and degrades, than if you expended less energy by consuming less calories, period. This is recognized even in physics, just like the best of modern nutrition research like the study headed by Masato Nagai. But instead you want to tell us the opposite because some unqualified fad guru told you so on his blog. Lol.

I provide more links to my sources than probably any other contributor to this forum. If you could back up everything you say in a similar manner you would be doing yourself and other readers a favor.


EVERY SINGLE PERSON reading this forum can look at a graph comparing saturated fat intake and compare that to the number of CVD deaths and SEE FOR THEMSELVES if eating a high saturated fat diet is associated with higher or lower CVD.
The fact you allow yourself to be conned is simply a reflection of your own gullibility, it is not sigh you are capable of thinking for yourself.
The failure of people with PROPER BACKGROUND to give accurate easy to follow evidence based advice that actually works is the reason we are in our present obesity crisis.
If you can show me evidence that women with a BMI of between 25~29.9 have lower life expectancy than women of the same age with BMI below 18.5 then show me a link to that evidence.
If you can't put up then shut up.

The fact is you don't want to have to think for yourself or take responsibility for your own health. You want someone with proper qualifications to set you up to be milked as a cash cow by big pharma. Most people here are sufficiently grown up to be able to think for themselves and simply by looking at the evidence see for themselves where the lowest incidence of all cause mortality can be found.

I'm not surprised you find it so difficult to face up to reality.

Back it up in what manner? Earlier in this thread you cited this study, thinking it is a good, pro-cholesterol denialist argument:
But, duh, if more die of cardiovascular related reasons due to more cholesterol intake, their incidence of death for other factors will go down! I don't know you you cannot understand it, let alone whatever blog or other forumer you poached it from!

Also as I repeated in this thread also, you cited a graph from a study by Dr Masato Nagai, which concludes that about obesity despite what you claim, that being more obese or fat is less healthy. And I don't see how you can consider Sally Fallon of a healthy weight by any means or deign to do a "tea leaf reading" of her BMI. I will just say for the head of a organization that deems to give diet and nutrition advice and to also attack others like vegetarians and vegans, not only is she totally unqualified, but fat as well, lol.

In a recent post on another thread, you cited an article from another low quality blog entitled: Most Vegetarians Actually Eat Meat. So I checked the study that anti-vegetarian hit piece cited and was based on and found:
This is just in a few days span, I don't go through the effort of checking the numerous cherry picking and misinterpreting of studies and misleading graphs you crosspost here, but yeah, you do go to way too many bad blog sources authored by unqualified, disreputable lay people, who don't know how to interpret what they find in an honest manner, but who instead to cherry-pick to cause confusion. You may think that is a service to this forum, but I see it is a profound dis-service. The amount of confusion you spread is amazing.

Excellent point~

__________________

I agree, mommysunshie. Some people just dont know how to not be rude and they think that their rudeness might pull people to their way of thinking.. I certainly did not deserve the rudenes thrown my way.

I really dont give a flying flip what thrasymashus thinks or believes, and I think him wrong. Significantly wrong.. and he certainly has no bearing on my thought process, he knows nothing of my diet nor of my lifestyle nor of the stress I have had to deal with nor the long standing health issues I have had to work out over the years. Dam few on this forum could get up at 5:30 am like I do and do ranch and garden work like I do for 12 hours and still have energy to prepare a meal and entertain friends.

I cannot account for the photos of Sallay Fallon. Its really unfair to judge a person by their photo. We do not know what challenges she has had in her life. She may have an over eating disorder or homonal problems for all we know. Anyway, Sally Fallon does not do the paleo diet that I am aware of. ...

Well, since we are pulling up photos, here are photos of Drs. Eades.. they look pretty good for all that dead fat they eat!

My own medical doctor, who had been overweight since I first met her went to the paleo diet for about 1 year and lost a lot of weight. She looks great and says she feels great. She also says that she had to reduce a lot of stress in her life from overworking, that she said made her eat too much and hold weight.

https://www.eatprotein.com/

and here:
MD and spouse Dec 6, 2008
Arkansas, she and her husband have been in private practice devoting their clinical time exclusively to bariatric and nutritional medicine, gaining first hand experience treating thousands of people suffering from high blood pressure, diabetes, elevated cholesterol and triglycerides, and obesity with their nutritional regimen.
Since 1990, Dr. Eades has also authored four books on health topics for the layman: If it Runs in Your Family: Arthritis; If it Runs in Your Family: Breast Cancer; Freeing Someone you Love From Eating Disorders; and The Doctor�s Complete Guide to Vitamins and Minerals, which has gone through eighteen printings to date. With her husband Michael, she co-authored the best selling nutritional book Protein Power, published in 1996 by Bantam Books along with their new books, The Protein Power LifePlan, by Warner books (2000), The 30-Day Low Carb Diet Solution (Wiley 2003), The Low Carb Comfort Food Cookbook (Wiley 2003), and The Slow Burn Fitness Revolution (Broadway