Bread Question

"jmk" skrev i en meddelelse
Try an up to date nutrition textbook or the USDA database and check the
Aa profile of those foods. This is a 10+ year out of date concept.

Please provide your sources.


He did. "the USDA database"

/Jacob

Jacob Andersen wrote:

"jmk" skrev i en meddelelse
Try an up to date nutrition textbook or the USDA database and check the
Aa profile of those foods. This is a 10+ year out of date concept.

Please provide your sources.


He did. "the USDA database"

Also

International Journal of I'm Right and You're wrong. Vol 1-80.

Lyle

motu wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
motu wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
Watson Davis wrote:

Ignoramus20984 wrote in
Isn't a blood cholesterol level of 177 healthier than a blood
cholesterol
level of 128?

Excessively low cholesterol levels also correlate with increase risk
of
death.
There is a happy medium.

Lyle

Excessively low heart rate can have the same correlation, but what does
it
really mean?

Question: does low HR cause disease or is (a) disease causing a low HR?

Same question, is low cholesterol causal for disease?
Or does low cholesterol merely accompany the real mechanism for disease? (
Or even in regards to high chol for that matter)

Keep in mind that cholesterol is one of the key building blocks for cell walls.
Excessively low cholesterol appears to weaken cell walls, esp. blood
vessels which prediposes towards stroke and other CV incidents.

A causal link can be drawn based on mechanism.

Do you remember what range "excessively" covers?

Dunno what you are asking here.

Must be either my writing skills or your reading comprehension, or both.
I'll accept blame and restate.
At what point is cholesterol level considered "excessively low"? Looking
for a number range, and a cite would be nice.

You cited a link to a medline paper and then threw out the word
'excessively'. I couldn't find the word 'excessively' in the abstract,
hence my confusion. I blame your writing.

I recall 160 or so (meaning, don't swear me to that number) as being
about the cutoff point where increaesd risk of death starts to occur. I
think I cited something a while back. Check Google.

Death by?

I see stroke mentioned in your response, so I take it low serum chol has a
correlation to ischemic stroke?

yes. Japanese for example, with extremely low blood cholesterol levels
have minimal CVd (despite smoking and the rest). But they have
increased risk of stroke.

Mechanistic reasons are above: cholesterol good for cell wall strength,
low cholesterol limits building block availability. Body has to cut
corners somewhe cell walls are weakened.

Calcium is another good example. Both high blood calcium and low blood
calcium levels cause problems (different problems, mind you), there is
an optimal midline.

Frankly, most systems in teh body show this type of inverted U
dose-response curve. Too much and too little are harmful (tho harm is
usually different), in the middle, you're money.

Unga bunga.

Makes me glad I endured all those vaccinations for tropical diseases. If
you don't know, spare us from an answer. OTOH, go ahead, maybe we will at
least find it amusing.

Old joke.
Death...by unga bunga.

Lyle

motu wrote:

"Lyle McDonald"

Keep in mind that cholesterol is one of the key building blocks for cell
walls.
Excessively low cholesterol appears to weaken cell walls, esp. blood
vessels which prediposes towards stroke and other CV incidents.

I saw something based on the idea of the body using cholesterol to "patch"
small fissures in the arteries. That the cholesterol was forming plaques to
"protect" the arteries which had already become damaged by some means. Of
course, after a point, the effect of this "protection" would become
deleterious. Strengthening the walls too vigilantly and resulting in narrow
sclerotic passageways and impeding blood flow. OTOH, we don't see the same
plaques in veins.

See u-shaped dose-response curve below. Too little or too little
cholesterol and you have problems. No shocker there.

However, damage in terms of CVD is a little more involved. There is some
indication that it is only minimally modified cholesterol (basically,
stuff that has oxidized) that forms atherosclerotic plaques. The injury
concept (microinjuries to the cell wall, causing a 'patching' effect
that you mention is out there too). Also, plaque becomes calcified
which causes further problems in terms of cell wall function.

Mechanistic reasons are above: cholesterol good for cell wall strength,
low cholesterol limits building block availability. Body has to cut
corners somewhe cell walls are weakened.

So the body's ability to produce the cholesterol that was needed to renew
cells in artery walls was impaired by some mechanism. I thought our liver
just churned it out as needed, making up for any dietary shortfalls.

To a degree, yes, liver metabolism will adjust dependent on intake and
the rest.
But if it could adapt 100%, you'd never see any change in cholesterol.
It wouldn't surprise me if diet, hormones, etc. were essentially
changing the 'setpoint' at which the liver maintains blood cholesterol.
Gene expression, receptor/transporter densities, all that crap.

Unga bunga.

Makes me glad I endured all those vaccinations for tropical diseases.
If
you don't know, spare us from an answer. OTOH, go ahead, maybe we will
at
least find it amusing.

Old joke.
Death...by unga bunga.

And I thought you were just being annoying.

That too.

Lyle

motu wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in

And I thought you were just being annoying.

That too.


Yeah, there's always that. Anyway, I appreciate the input. I'm changing
alot of ideas I've held for awhile about nutrition in general. It's nice to
be exposed to different ideas that actually make sense, even on usenet.

it's easy: just listen to me.
I'm always right.

Lyle

motu wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
motu wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in

And I thought you were just being annoying.

That too.


Yeah, there's always that. Anyway, I appreciate the input. I'm
changing
alot of ideas I've held for awhile about nutrition in general. It's
nice to
be exposed to different ideas that actually make sense, even on usenet.

it's easy: just listen to me.
I'm always right.


I'll bet you always get the last word, too.

Yup.
And it's always right.

Lyle

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
motu wrote:

"Lyle McDonald"

Keep in mind that cholesterol is one of the key building blocks for
cell
walls.
Excessively low cholesterol appears to weaken cell walls, esp. blood
vessels which prediposes towards stroke and other CV incidents.

I saw something based on the idea of the body using cholesterol to
"patch"
small fissures in the arteries. That the cholesterol was forming
plaques to
"protect" the arteries which had already become damaged by some means.
Of
course, after a point, the effect of this "protection" would become
deleterious. Strengthening the walls too vigilantly and resulting in
narrow
sclerotic passageways and impeding blood flow. OTOH, we don't see the
same
plaques in veins.

See u-shaped dose-response curve below. Too little or too little
cholesterol and you have problems. No shocker there.


Somewhat tangential, but you need to be careful when looking at those
curves, because as an individual you do have added and important
information. So for example if you come from a genetic line with ample CVD,
you're probably better off with lower cholesterol and a higher risk of
hemorrhagic stroke, and vice versa.


Micky.


However, damage in terms of CVD is a little more involved. There is some
indication that it is only minimally modified cholesterol (basically,
stuff that has oxidized) that forms atherosclerotic plaques. The injury
concept (microinjuries to the cell wall, causing a 'patching' effect
that you mention is out there too). Also, plaque becomes calcified
which causes further problems in terms of cell wall function.

Mechanistic reasons are above: cholesterol good for cell wall
strength,
low cholesterol limits building block availability. Body has to cut
corners somewhe cell walls are weakened.

So the body's ability to produce the cholesterol that was needed to
renew
cells in artery walls was impaired by some mechanism. I thought our
liver
just churned it out as needed, making up for any dietary shortfalls.

To a degree, yes, liver metabolism will adjust dependent on intake and
the rest.
But if it could adapt 100%, you'd never see any change in cholesterol.
It wouldn't surprise me if diet, hormones, etc. were essentially
changing the 'setpoint' at which the liver maintains blood cholesterol.
Gene expression, receptor/transporter densities, all that crap.

Unga bunga.

Makes me glad I endured all those vaccinations for tropical
diseases.
If
you don't know, spare us from an answer. OTOH, go ahead, maybe we
will
at
least find it amusing.

Old joke.
Death...by unga bunga.

And I thought you were just being annoying.

That too.

Lyle

Micky Snir wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
motu wrote:

"Lyle McDonald"

Keep in mind that cholesterol is one of the key building blocks for
cell
walls.
Excessively low cholesterol appears to weaken cell walls, esp. blood
vessels which prediposes towards stroke and other CV incidents.

I saw something based on the idea of the body using cholesterol to
"patch"
small fissures in the arteries. That the cholesterol was forming
plaques to
"protect" the arteries which had already become damaged by some means.
Of
course, after a point, the effect of this "protection" would become
deleterious. Strengthening the walls too vigilantly and resulting in
narrow
sclerotic passageways and impeding blood flow. OTOH, we don't see the
same
plaques in veins.

See u-shaped dose-response curve below. Too little or too little
cholesterol and you have problems. No shocker there.

Somewhat tangential, but you need to be careful when looking at those
curves, because as an individual you do have added and important
information. So for example if you come from a genetic line with ample CVD,
you're probably better off with lower cholesterol and a higher risk of
hemorrhagic stroke, and vice versa.

Sure, there are always other considerations.
And someone with a genetic risk towards ischemic stroke would want
higher blood cholesterol.

I didn't see this thread as being a discussion of all possible eventualities.

The point is simply that both high and low cholesterol levels can be
problematic on average.

Just like high and low calcium intakes, high and low fat intakes, high
and low vitamin/mienral intakes and just about anything else you care to name.

People are stupid, get into the idea that if 'Low is good, lower is
better' or 'If high is good, higher is better.' Both are usually
fallacious (unless you're talking about sex with me in which case more
is always better).

Better is better and 'better' usually equals some happy medium that
provides optimal function.

Lyle

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
Micky Snir wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
motu wrote:

"Lyle McDonald"

Keep in mind that cholesterol is one of the key building blocks
for
cell
walls.
Excessively low cholesterol appears to weaken cell walls, esp.
blood
vessels which prediposes towards stroke and other CV incidents.

I saw something based on the idea of the body using cholesterol to
"patch"
small fissures in the arteries. That the cholesterol was forming
plaques to
"protect" the arteries which had already become damaged by some
means.
Of
course, after a point, the effect of this "protection" would become
deleterious. Strengthening the walls too vigilantly and resulting
in
narrow
sclerotic passageways and impeding blood flow. OTOH, we don't see
the
same
plaques in veins.

See u-shaped dose-response curve below. Too little or too little
cholesterol and you have problems. No shocker there.

Somewhat tangential, but you need to be careful when looking at those
curves, because as an individual you do have added and important
information. So for example if you come from a genetic line with ample
CVD,
you're probably better off with lower cholesterol and a higher risk of
hemorrhagic stroke, and vice versa.

Sure, there are always other considerations.
And someone with a genetic risk towards ischemic stroke would want
higher blood cholesterol.

I didn't see this thread as being a discussion of all possible
eventualities.

The point is simply that both high and low cholesterol levels can be
problematic on average.

Just like high and low calcium intakes, high and low fat intakes, high
and low vitamin/mienral intakes and just about anything else you care to
name.

People are stupid, get into the idea that if 'Low is good, lower is
better' or 'If high is good, higher is better.' Both are usually
fallacious (unless you're talking about sex with me in which case more
is always better).

cough; blush is that an offer? pitcher? receiver? I will not stoop to
whispering medline abstracts in your ear though!

M.


Better is better and 'better' usually equals some happy medium that
provides optimal function.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald wrote in message ...
Lyle McDonald wrote:

ignorcrew wrote:

Lyle McDonald wrote in message news:

Yeah, 48 whole calories of fat. 5 grams.
Does the concept of percentage vs. absolutes mean anything to you, moron?

Percentage matters. Whoever eats foods that are essentially 50% fat
are not on the road to a great diet. 140 lb female, for example, on
1400 kcal a day diet, may not have the 5 grams of fat to spend on a
piece of tortilla if she is trying to limit her fat to 20-30% of total
calories.

Get it, moron?

Lemme make sure I have this straight:

A diet that is 30% fat but contains, say 200 grams of fat (6000
calories/1800 cal from fat) is healther than one that contains 50% fat
but only 100 grams of fat (1800 cal/900 cal from fat)?

What if I'm eating a diet that is 50 grams of fat and nothing else?
That's a 100% fat diet.
But it's still only 50 grams.

is that unhealhier than either of the exmaples above,. both of which
contain more fat on an absolute scale but a lower percentage?

Would it be healthier if I added enough table sugar to my 50 grams of
fat to bring the percentage below 30%?

Is any of this sinking in or are you just determined to be a ****wit?

Lyle

You took whatever I said out of context. It's presicely because people
who consume good diet must eat some foods that are much higher in fat
than others, like oil on your salad, fat in your meat, nuts,fatty
fish, etc, is why a small person on a good low cal diet may not be
able to affort bread which is 50% fat.

When I try to stick to my 1500 kcal a day diet while eating some low
fat meats, low fat milk products, some fish, and maybe some oil on a
salad, I get plenty of fat (about 30% of total calories, or 50 grams)
while not eating anything like a 50% fat tortilas. This might be
personal preference, of course, but I would not actually be able to
work that tortila in while still maintaining a good diet.

When consuming a low amount of calories (in an absolute, not relative
sense) some foods just don't have a place in your diet. If you start
working these foods in you will be missing something essential that
should be your diet.

I hope I made myself clear.