yup…it could have been fluoride that was linked to cholesterol problems…and not chlorinated water
my bad
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Kill’Em All wrote:
I would love to see you test your cholesterol numbers after your weekend carb up. like on the end of day two.
since your following the anabolic diet.
im willing to bet that the heightened insulin leves will jack your cholesterol up.
It would be cool to see.
This is a HUGE topic which isn’t going to be completely settled in any bodybuilding forum. However 2 inescapable facts have emerged to my satisfaction since my embarking on the AD as a total lifestyle.
1> Eating mountains of fat has NOT gotten me fat.
2> Eating mountains of cholesterol laden food has NOT given me high cholesterol.
The science regarding the relationship between saturated fat/dietary cholesterol/cancer/heart disease etc is in a constant state of debatable flux at very best with most of the research being funded by companies who have everything to lose by any findings that contradict their historically indefensible dogma.
I’ve read some of them where they flatly state that even though the results show no direct correlation between even high levels of serum cholesterol and cardiac morbidity they stand by their recommendations basically because it’s what;s been recommended.
I wasn’t going to get into this amount of detail, but I don’t even believe high serum cholesterol alone has anything to do with heart disease. I just started this thread to report that mine hadn’t risen above the prescribed levels despite doing the diametric opposite of what we’re being beaten over the head with.
If they are that wrong about that what else are they that wrong about? Make no mistake friend people will sell the souls of their own children for money and too many people have too much to gain by making sure that not too many people ever really get too well.
The voices of dissent don’t have the billions to fund research with people who’ll just report the findings and if they did they’d probably be corrupted in short order as well.
I’m betting my life and my family,s lives on history. People ate what we eat for millennia and it took plagues and wars to kill the per capita numbers of them as todays dietary recommendations and bullshit drugs and therapies.
Medical science has done much good and I would never discount it wholesale, but does anybody really believe they are going to promote information that would slash their profits practically overnight if anybody actually did it?[/quote]
Not to mention,with some of those studies they’re now going back and finding that those people who ate a diet high in saturated fat also ate a diet higher in trans fat too.
Just another reason why you shouldn’t believe every study out there,especially the ones funded by the drug companies.
In England,doctors can give fish oil to their patients to lower cholesterol. Not over here though,since only a drug can cure,prevent,or treat a disease.
[quote]marlboroman wrote:
“I swear in a 2 hour show, especially news shows, there must be 15 commercials for one kind of drug or another.”
hmmmmm…
could it be possible that the companies that own the News medias are in any way related to the companies that own the drug companies ??
maybe one in the same ?
naw…couldnt be
[/quote]
Demographics is the most likely explanation. The largest viewing audience for the evening news is Baby Boomers and older. Those are the folks who eclipse everyone else in drug usage.
Watch a football game lately? What are the adds? Beer, trucks, razors.
Watch MTV(horrible)? Tampons, condoms and zit cream.
I’m not excusing drug companies of selling band-aid fixes, they are just advertising to their base.
[quote]derek wrote:
Not so much causality but corellation. Smoking is cancer CAUSING, our modern diet seems to ALLOW or promote cancer cell proliferation while not actually causing it.
[/quote]
I have the same feeling. We are feeding the cancer with some of the stuff we eat.
[quote]marlboroman wrote:
yup…it could have been fluoride that was linked to cholesterol problems…and not chlorinated water
my bad[/quote]
There is so much misinformation out there with fluoridated water I have no idea what to believe.
My community does not fluoridate although many still do.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Everybody is on meds, it seems.
The problem is the meds aren’t designed to fix anything… they just push one set of symptoms down, in all likelihood hiding or even creating some other problems (susceptibilities).
Whether these other issues exist or are important is either unknown or hidden until people start suffering consequences and the public finally gets informed.
What a scam.[/quote]
Remember when medicine actually did something? You took antibiotics and the infection went away.
Now there is so many antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria out there that there is no guarantee antibiotics will work.
Drug companies push unnecessary drugs whose side effects are worse than the condition they are meant to treat.
Lazy and stupid people keep buying them.
Some good stuff out there though.
My buddy has been HIV positive for about 15 years and takes a fistful of pills every morning. He looks and feels healthier than 90% of the people I see.
Without his meds he probably would not be around today.
heres my take on Antibiotics…
little Johnny sneezes . Johnny’s Mum panics , and rushes him to the Emergency Room . ER Nurse inquires about insurance . ER Doc looks Johnny over ; decides Johnny needs a couple tests . Doc concludes Johnny has a cold . Doc knows that Antibiotics aint gonna help much , but he also knows that Mum wants to get her moneys worth out of the visit ; Mum dont wanna hear that the symptoms will pass in a week because Johnny’s immune system will take care of things .
So Doc writes an antibiotic script . Mum goes home happy , knowing that she saved little Johnny’s life ; Doc is happy because he helped Mum sleep better tonight .
its a win-win situation…
except for Johnny . but he’ll have insurance of his own someday
and dont forget to get Johnny his flu shot…because they’re in short supply ; if you dont get it today , they may run out !!
[quote]marlboroman wrote:
heres my take on Antibiotics…
little Johnny sneezes . Johnny’s Mum panics , and rushes him to the Emergency Room . ER Nurse inquires about insurance . ER Doc looks Johnny over ; decides Johnny needs a couple tests . Doc concludes Johnny has a cold . Doc knows that Antibiotics aint gonna help much , but he also knows that Mum wants to get her moneys worth out of the visit ; Mum dont wanna hear that the symptoms will pass in a week because Johnny’s immune system will take care of things .
So Doc writes an antibiotic script . Mum goes home happy , knowing that she saved little Johnny’s life ; Doc is happy because he helped Mum sleep better tonight .
its a win-win situation…
except for Johnny . but he’ll have insurance of his own someday[/quote]
See how much of that first rate treatment little Johnny really “needs” afterall when it’s discovered Mum DOESN"T have insurance. Suddenly little Johnny’s a healthy young guy who’ll fight it off just fine.
I have first hand experience with this type of thing.
[quote]steadfastred wrote:
marlboroman wrote:
“I swear in a 2 hour show, especially news shows, there must be 15 commercials for one kind of drug or another.”
hmmmmm…
could it be possible that the companies that own the News medias are in any way related to the companies that own the drug companies ??
maybe one in the same ?
naw…couldnt be
Demographics is the most likely explanation. The largest viewing audience for the evening news is Baby Boomers and older. Those are the folks who eclipse everyone else in drug usage.
Watch a football game lately? What are the adds? Beer, trucks, razors.
Watch MTV(horrible)? Tampons, condoms and zit cream.
I’m not excusing drug companies of selling band-aid fixes, they are just advertising to their base.[/quote]
I know what you’re saying, but I’m talking cable news. 24 hr news coverage and current events shows. Even in the morning. Actually A&E, The History Channel, Discovery Channel, even The Military Channel. At least one and maybe 2 drug commercials just about every break.
I wouldn’t even contaminate my mind with MTV so I can’t speak from much experience there.
“I’d hate to have to go around thinking of health & shit like that.”
Keith Richards 1997
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
So the debate is over FOR ME. I’m not suggesting that anybody else should construe what I’m saying as anything more than what it says. Don’t rely on anybody else for this kinda thing test yourself or have yourself tested…[/quote]
This is a great attitude, and I wish more guys here had it. Everyone wants to endlessly debate whether some training or dieting program is The Truth. I could care less about capital-t Truth.
All I care about is what works FOR ME. If what works for me is considered wrong-headed, I could care less. My truth might be your heresy.
You know what works for your body. No one else’s opinion about your diet, from this point on, will matter.
Isn’t that a great feeling?
[quote]Leeuwer wrote:
I’m still amazed every single day how much people comment on eating eggs, while they order a plate of french fries with mayonaise.[/quote]
How many of them realize that mayonnaise is made of egg yolks? Not many, I bet.
Years ago, I had coworkers who would always comment on how much sugar I put into my coffee (I had a sweet tooth back then). The same people would think nothing of drinking several cans of soda a day. One can of classic Coke contains about 11 teaspoons of sugar.
The hypocrisy of people is amazing.
I had one fat girl comment on how much I eat, and how that’s gonna make me fat.
She said she ate little(once a day lasagna combined with sugar drinks throughout the day)and she was convinced that was the way to go.
Because she wasn’t rude about it, I said that you always have to look at it in a simple way. You look healthy - you eat healthy - you act healthy - you are healthy.
She was a little offended at first, but came to me later on to ask what was healthy to eat then. Last I heard of her is that she laid off the cola and sprite, guess that’s a start.
[quote]jwillow wrote:
Years ago, I had coworkers who would always comment on how much sugar I put into my coffee (I had a sweet tooth back then). The same people would think nothing of drinking several cans of soda a day. One can of classic Coke contains about 11 teaspoons of sugar.[/quote]
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
This is a great attitude, and I wish more guys here had it. Everyone wants to endlessly debate whether some training or dieting program is The Truth. I could care less about capital-t Truth.
All I care about is what works FOR ME. If what works for me is considered wrong-headed, I could care less. My truth might be your heresy.
You know what works for your body. No one else’s opinion about your diet, from this point on, will matter.
Isn’t that a great feeling?[/quote]
Statements of universal application from individual experience, while not invalid in an ipso facto fashion, can only be made with regard to broad principles indisputably shared by every person.
Hence my trepidation at making such statements lest I find myself responsible for contributing to the shipwreck of someone’s training or even health who may be so foolish as to adopt something I say without personal corroboration of it’s suitableness to them.
Some people have an innate tendency to assign undue authority to anyone who sounds like they know what they’re talking about even though that person may be an undiluted incompetent in the field under discussion.
I had some serious problems with acid reflux at night while I slept. If any of you ever experienced it, you know what a horrible awakening it is. There is nothing like waking up in the middle of the night choking on your own stomach acid. Anyway, I was downing Prilosec everyday and it’s not cheap.
All this time (1 1/2 years) I was eating garbage (refined carbs, fast food) etc. I vowed to change my eating/exercise habits for life and made serious changes to my diet. I have been on a low carb, high protein, high fat diet. It took less than a week for me to get off the Prilosec and have never had even a hint of acid reflux since.
My point being that the comercials make it sound like it’s something that has been sticken upon you and this pill will make it better. When really the simple and obviously cheaper answer is to change your diet and exercise habits.
Prilosec’s message is basically “if you have fucked-up eating habits, we’ll relieve the consequences while you die a slow death and continue to live in misery”.
[quote]BlacknGold wrote:
I had some serious problems with acid reflux at night while I slept. If any of you ever experienced it, you know what a horrible awakening it is. There is nothing like waking up in the middle of the night choking on your own stomach acid. Anyway, I was downing Prilosec everyday and it’s not cheap.
All this time (1 1/2 years) I was eating garbage (refined carbs, fast food) etc. I vowed to change my eating/exercise habits for life and made serious changes to my diet. I have been on a low carb, high protein, high fat diet. It took less than a week for me to get off the Prilosec and have never had even a hint of acid reflux since.
My point being that the comercials make it sound like it’s something that has been sticken upon you and this pill will make it better. When really the simple and obviously cheaper answer is to change your diet and exercise habits.
Prilosec’s message is basically “if you have fucked-up eating habits, we’ll relieve the consequences while you die a slow death and continue to live in misery”. [/quote]
I understand.
If you’re having major trouble with your acid reflux,PM me.
There was a study by the American College of Sports Medicine, or at least published in their journal if not actually by them, I guess about 11 years ago studying blood lipid profile in relation to number of eggs eaten per day by athletes, up to maximum of 12 eggs per day.
Their findings were that blood lipid profile improved with increasing egg consumption including up to the 12 egg/day point.
So that’s consistent with your results.
Incidentally, this whole area is one of phenomenal medical stupidity.
The basic error is similar to if, for example, one knew that alcohol was a “liquid” and tended to use the word liquid to mean alcohol, and therefore knew that too much “liquid” consumption was bad for you, and therefore advised people against drinking water because you don’t want to raise blood “liquid” levels, else you’ll get drunk, perhaps get cirrhosis of the liver, etc.
What doctors call “blood cholesterol” is no more cholesterol than water is alcohol. It’s lipoproteins, whereas cholesterol is a steroid. Completely different chemically, one doesn’t yield the other.
But if being ignorant of this, I suppose it’s “obvious” that increased cholesterol consumption must yield increased blood “cholesterol.” Just unbelievably dumb but there are other things doctors commonly do that are equally dumb, so it shouldn’t be assumed that MD’s couldn’t be that wrong.