• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No One Eats a Cholesterol Sandwich—It’s Meat, Milk, and Eggs That Make Us Sick

Joined
Feb 20, 2016
Messages
3,089
Reaction score
571
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
The USDA’s recent proposal to eliminate dietary cholesterol guidelines has positive and negative repercussions. It also reminds us why government nutritional recommendations are not reliable.

In a way, we like the USDA’s change, because it supports the notion we should not be viewing what we eat in terms of individual substances, since what we eat is rarely one nutrient or one chemical. For example, have you ever had a bowl of cholesterol?

Indeed, focusing on foods as “cholesterol” or “protein” or “calcium” has led to a great deal of confusion about what constitutes healthy food. For instance do we avoid meat because it’s high in cholesterol, or eat it because it’s high in protein? The actual answer, by the way, is that we should avoid or minimize it, because as a food, in any significant amount, it’s harmful to human health.

The problem in changing the dietary cholesterol recommendation is that it suggests that foods that contain cholesterol—animal products such as meat, milk, and eggs—are healthy to consume. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Every day we are learning how these foods contribute to heart disease, type-2 diabetes, and increased cancer risk.1-7 Indeed one study recently published in Cell Metabolism showed that diets high in animal products (even controlling for fat) increase overall mortality by 75%, cancer death by 400%, and diabetes death by 500%.8

We would be okay if health officials eliminated the focus on cholesterol as a culprit in poor health—if, and only if, these officials warn consumers to minimize or eliminate animal foods. The elimination of cholesterol guidelines, we worry, will provide the animal industries the cover they need to falsely argue that meat, milk, and eggs are healthy.

The inherent politics of the matter bring us to an important point. We shouldn’t be relying on government nutritional guidelines in the first place, because they are subject to the influence of political and financial interests. Instead, we should search for the truth on our own.

In our search, we have found that it’s best to focus on foods and not constituent parts like protein or calcium. And the overall evidence of what foods to eat is clear: fruit, vegetables, tubers, whole grains and legumes bring about good health and vitality, while animal and highly processed foods should be minimized or eliminated.


No One Eats a Cholesterol Sandwich—It’s Meat, Milk, and Eggs That Make Us Sick
__________
 

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
35,067
Reaction score
37,723
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
And the overall evidence of what foods to eat is clear: fruit, vegetables, tubers, whole grains and legumes bring about good health and vitality, while animal and highly processed foods should be minimized or eliminated.

No One Eats a Cholesterol Sandwich—It’s Meat, Milk, and Eggs That Make Us Sick
__________

I don't think we needed a study to tell us that vegetables are more healthy than meat and highly processed foods.

That's pretty much common knowledge.
 
Last edited:

clownboy

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
26,087
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
And yet you won't find one centenarian who has gone their lifetime without these staples. Your evidence is not clear, it is the selective interpretation of data by purists. It's what fanatics of any stripe do.
 

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
35,067
Reaction score
37,723
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
And yet you won't find one centenarian who has gone their lifetime without these staples. Your evidence is not clear, it is the selective interpretation of data by purists. It's what fanatics of any stripe do.
It's what all these vegans (the crazy ones) do.
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,745
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I don't think we needed a study to tell us that vegetables are more healthy than meat and highly processed foods.

That's pretty much common knowledge.

It may well be as much of a myth as was the 40 years we were told that eating fat and especially cholesterol was bad for us. Or the lest 10 where were have been told to eat a lot of fruit, with is mostly sugar, and according to science is likely worse for us than eating chocolate.
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,745
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The USDA’s recent proposal to eliminate dietary cholesterol guidelines has positive and negative repercussions. It also reminds us why government nutritional recommendations are not reliable.

In a way, we like the USDA’s change, because it supports the notion we should not be viewing what we eat in terms of individual substances, since what we eat is rarely one nutrient or one chemical. For example, have you ever had a bowl of cholesterol?

Indeed, focusing on foods as “cholesterol” or “protein” or “calcium” has led to a great deal of confusion about what constitutes healthy food. For instance do we avoid meat because it’s high in cholesterol, or eat it because it’s high in protein? The actual answer, by the way, is that we should avoid or minimize it, because as a food, in any significant amount, it’s harmful to human health.

The problem in changing the dietary cholesterol recommendation is that it suggests that foods that contain cholesterol—animal products such as meat, milk, and eggs—are healthy to consume. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Every day we are learning how these foods contribute to heart disease, type-2 diabetes, and increased cancer risk.1-7 Indeed one study recently published in Cell Metabolism showed that diets high in animal products (even controlling for fat) increase overall mortality by 75%, cancer death by 400%, and diabetes death by 500%.8

We would be okay if health officials eliminated the focus on cholesterol as a culprit in poor health—if, and only if, these officials warn consumers to minimize or eliminate animal foods. The elimination of cholesterol guidelines, we worry, will provide the animal industries the cover they need to falsely argue that meat, milk, and eggs are healthy.

The inherent politics of the matter bring us to an important point. We shouldn’t be relying on government nutritional guidelines in the first place, because they are subject to the influence of political and financial interests. Instead, we should search for the truth on our own.


In our search, we have found that it’s best to focus on foods and not constituent parts like protein or calcium. And the overall evidence of what foods to eat is clear: fruit, vegetables, tubers, whole grains and legumes bring about good health and vitality, while animal and highly processed foods should be minimized or eliminated.


No One Eats a Cholesterol Sandwich—It’s Meat, Milk, and Eggs That Make Us Sick
__________

Then after we do that you should design a safer nuclear power plant, then bring world peace, then solve global warming. Lift yourself up by your bootstraps people! *sarcasm*
 
Last edited:

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Mmmmm...bowl of cholesterol.

Mmmmmmmm....cholesterol sandwich.
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,745
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Mmmmmmmm....cholesterol sandwich.

Hot sausage, egg and American cheese on toasted bread is a good choice.

A little Tabasco makes it even better.

Food of the GODS.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2016
Messages
3,089
Reaction score
571
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
And yet you won't find one centenarian who has gone their lifetime without these staples. Your evidence is not clear, it is the selective interpretation of data by purists. It's what fanatics of any stripe do.

wrong. you couldn't even be more wrong.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2016
Messages
3,089
Reaction score
571
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
It may well be as much of a myth as was the 40 years we were told that eating fat and especially cholesterol was bad for us. Or the lest 10 where were have been told to eat a lot of fruit, with is mostly sugar, and according to science is likely worse for us than eating chocolate.

eating fruit isn't healthy? OK professor.
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,745
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
eating fruit isn't healthy? OK professor.

Does not seem to be. Too much stress on our sugar metabolism systems seems to be the primary problem with our current diet. Eat less, and part of that is eating things that make you feel full and satisfied...... eat more fat, less sugar and less carbs (which to the body is sugar). I recommend a fiber supplement as well.
 

clownboy

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
26,087
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
wrong. you couldn't even be more wrong.

Never worked with centenarians I see. Fanatics have never been able to see how they are engaged in selective data presentation, it's part of their damage.
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,745
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I asked 8 researchers why the science of nutrition is so messy. Here’s what they said.

This broad advice was reflected by a consensus statement from a very diverse group of nutrition researchers, who recently got together to discuss what they agree on about food and health.

Here's what they came up with:

A healthy dietary pattern is higher in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, low- or non-fat dairy, seafood, legumes, and nuts; moderate in alcohol (among adults); lower in red and processed meats; and low in sugar-sweetened foods and drinks and refined grains.

Additional strong evidence shows that it is not necessary to eliminate food groups or conform to a single dietary pattern to achieve healthy dietary patterns. Rather, individuals can combine foods in a variety of flexible ways to achieve healthy dietary patterns, and these strategies should be tailored to meet the individual’s health needs, dietary preferences and cultural traditions.

Anyone who tells you it's more complicated than that — that particular foods like kale or gluten are killing people — probably isn't speaking from science, because, as you can see now, that science would actually be near impossible to conduct.

I asked 8 researchers why the science of nutrition is so messy. Here’s what they said. - Vox

But even this is not solid, the idea that we should cut the fat in our dairy is deeply controversial from a science perspective, and while eating from the sea is in general clearly a good Idea that is fast becoming a was because the seas are becoming polluted and and a lot of sea life stores the toxins in their flesh, and our bodies tend to absorb these toxins when we eat the seafood. We have already talked about the problem with fruit, some fruit is good for us, but we need to watch out for all of that sugar. The rest of this advice is pretty solid from what we know.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2016
Messages
3,089
Reaction score
571
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
Never worked with centenarians I see. Fanatics have never been able to see how they are engaged in selective data presentation, it's part of their damage.

right. so saying you know centenarians who eat crap and smoke isn't "selective"


hahahahahaha
 

clownboy

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
26,087
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
right. so saying you know centenarians who eat crap and smoke isn't "selective"


hahahahahaha

Actually, I've known quite a few and they all eat what you call crap. They're meat eaters. A good number of them smoke too, although most had given that up in their 70s or 80s.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2016
Messages
3,089
Reaction score
571
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
Actually, I've known quite a few and they all eat what you call crap. They're meat eaters. A good number of them smoke too, although most had given that up in their 70s or 80s.

and that doesn't tell you anything?
 

EMNofSeattle

No Shame!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
30,935
Reaction score
10,098
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
wrong. you couldn't even be more wrong.

You would be wrong.

Over half of America's super centarians grew up in rural households, where meat is the staple. And eggs.
 

SocialD

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Messages
2,467
Reaction score
716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The USDA’s recent proposal to eliminate dietary cholesterol guidelines has positive and negative repercussions. It also reminds us why government nutritional recommendations are not reliable.
__________


Now that I heartily agree with.

When I was a little kid I recall in school there was a big campaign about the four food groups. meats, grains, fruits/veggies, dairy. This was a big USDA program they were pushing through the school systems and otherwise.
I recall the school lunches were one portion of each. you had your half pint of milk long with some turkey or chicken or meatloaf and potatoes or rice or spaghetti and then some corn or peas or carrots or maybe some fruit.
So years later I find in reading that this was just the USDA , knowing that an equal portion of each was not an ideal diet BUT.. if they proposed an equal part of each then it satisfied the ranching , dairy, and farming industries equally.
My confidence in the USDA and FDA are not all that stellar.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2016
Messages
3,089
Reaction score
571
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
You would be wrong.

Over half of America's super centarians grew up in rural households, where meat is the staple. And eggs.


That's because the country used to be more rural.

use some damn logic
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2016
Messages
3,089
Reaction score
571
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive

clownboy

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
26,087
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Umm, 100 years ago, Americans ate less meat

IF true (I've seen the stats interpreted both ways), that means those centenarians alive today ate more and more meat as they aged. They increased their meat intake.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2016
Messages
3,089
Reaction score
571
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
IF true (I've seen the stats interpreted both ways), that means those centenarians alive today ate more and more meat as they aged. They increased their meat intake.

no it doesn't. mot people don't get that old. you need a statistics class.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,524
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
IF true (I've seen the stats interpreted both ways), that means those centenarians alive today ate more and more meat as they aged. They increased their meat intake.

No, it doesn't mean that. It means that the people who were born after them ate more meat which brought the average up
 
Top Bottom