Food For Thought: Meat-Based Diet Made Us Smarter

reply to post by burdman30ott6

haha a little mental sparring never hurts right? How about those chimps?
anyways, congrats on your success. Type 2 diabetes is no joke! It sounds like you are maybe a meso/endo body type (football). It really isn't important but may play a small part in your earlier problems.
What is a typical days worth of food for you? Also, is this to become a lifelong dietary choice? What are your sources for healthy fats?
I am a CPT, so these are issues important to me and I do value your input/answers.
Is Fly tying for fishing or interrogating insects (I do neither)?

reply to post by Fifth Horseman


Fly tying is for fishing. Salmon & trout fishing, for me. Which is where some of those fats come from.

I am naturally a large man. Before I started this diet I was 355 lbs at between 6'4" and 6'5". The lightest weight I have been since high school was 240 lbs which, though still very obese by the BMI chart standard, is within 10 lbs of what I have been told is my natural healthy weight considering my frame and muscle mass.

My typical pre-diet day was relatively normal (ie: the average American diet), though the quantities were greater than what they should have been. I had tried the standard low-cal diet religiously for 6 months last year. When I started it, I was 340 lbs. I lost a grand total of 5 lbs on that 1800 cal a day diet which was heavy on the fruits & veggies and extremely light on the fat. When I became frustrated and went off the diet last Thanksgiving I quickly gained 20 lbs. Changes had to be made.

Today my daily meals are a couple of eggs, 3 slices of bacon, and coffee with cream for breakfast. Lunch is usually some lunchmeat (with no nitrates) and some sharp cheddar cheese (about 2 oz worth). Dinner is some form of meat (double portion of hamburger patties, two chicken breasts skin on, two unbreaded pork chops, salmon, etc.) and either a decent sized salad with ceasar or ranch dressing or a large side dish of spinach/broccoli/cauliflower... really any lower carb veggie. In between these I will enjoy a snack of jerky (homemade) and sugar free jell-o. I also drink well over a gallon of water a day (important to do on any diet, but especially important on a low carb diet to keep regularity and also to prevent kidney stones.)

The biggest changes I have seen are the need for new shirts (old ones are tent-like on me now), better vision, and more energy. I was often finding myself re-reading paragraphs and having to stare at things to figure them often when I was on the low calorie diet. I have not had those problems on this.

reply to post by burdman30ott6
well I really have no further interest in this thread, as I think the premise is flawed and I don't want to derail any further. I think you could shave quite a bit more off by dropping a few pieces of bacon in exchange for a handful of nuts or beans. Try it once or twice a week. Your handfulls are probably quite large (6'4"?) and it would be a nice change of pace. Almonds would be my first choice, next would be walnuts. As for the eggs a 4:1 white/yolk ratio is a healthier choice, especially if it is a daily choice. A BLT with avocado and pepper slices in exchange for the lettuce and tomato, wrapped in lunch meat might be right up your alley? Peace, until next thread

If meat really increases brain function in some way, I would say the quality of protein and the amino acids play a very big role. Remember we are all different in many aspects, so some people do not seem to have a need for meats and their nutrients. Maybe those that do feel an increase in not just brain function, but overall well being and energy, after consuming more meat have a very important need for the nutrients due to some unnoticed health condition or perhaps a lack of proper digestion.

Originally posted by CuteChimaera

Originally posted by The Utopian Penguin
Could there be a correlation between getting smarter and incorporating "meat" in our diets being that meat,eggs and dairy are the only viable sources of B-12 ?
[edit on 3-8-2010 by The Utopian Penguin]

If meat were the only viable source of B12 then we, as creatures made of meat, would have plenty of it.

*fixed spelling*

[edit on 3/8/10 by CuteChimaera]

Unfortunately,many of us are deficient in the b-12 department.
So I don't think cannibalism would of been a goodly thing to engage in way back when to alleviate the problem. lol
B-12

Originally posted by Fifth Horseman
Almonds would be my first choice, next would be walnuts. As for the eggs a 4:1 white/yolk ratio is a healthier choice, especially if it is a daily choice. A BLT with avocado and pepper slices in exchange for the lettuce and tomato, wrapped in lunch meat might be right up your alley? Peace, until next thread

Why would he replace bacon with almonds or other nuts? Nuts contain high levels of omega6 PUFA's and are cooked and stored in containers which leads to rancidity.

Likewise your egg suggestion is retarded, the eggs yolks are the healthiest part of the egg. If anything I would do more yolks and less whits as the proteins in the whites can cause auto immune problems.

Your recomendations clearly come from the little bit of nutrition knoweldge that you get from the tv or other propangda source. Try to actually do some internet research on anthropological nutrition, physiology etc.

reply to post by Sourdough4life
really? You really think eating bacon everyday is good for you? really? Um, not sure where you get your information from (internet, a very trustworthy source, HAHAHAHAHA) but do look into the carcinogens(from overcooking) and nitrates present in most bacon. Four pieces of bacon contain approx 800 miligrams of sodium! Sound healthy to you? According to the HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, there has been a strong link established between the eating of processed meats (salting, smoking, curing, and chemical preservation) and increased heart disease and diabetes. Not to mention potential increase in blood pressure. Also over 1/3 of the fat present is saturated. Over half the calories come from fat.

Rancid nuts? Not me! I go organic and get them by the pound. Walnuts have plenty of omega 3 present, and the potential of increased inflammation from overdoing the omega 6 is negated by the deacreased strain on the heart by switching off the bacon. Also, nuts are high in fiber. Bacon, not so much. Its called eating a BALANCED menu.

My nutritional education comes from N.E.S.T.A where I am a CPT. Look it up. What are your credentials? Internet dietician? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

As for the eggs: simple, the whites contain no cholesterol, and over half the protein of the egg. Note that I said if it was a DAILY nutritional choice, I would do the 4:1 ratio. You just can't keep eating all the fat and cholesterol you want and expect good health. If you are experiencing any auto immuno problems then maybe you shouldn't eat eggs period.

Your post was very salty (pun intended) and comes across as very rude. You would have noticed that I listed my credentials earlier than the post you tried and failed to rip apart. So your advice to read up on physiololgy and dietary sciences is laughable. Sorry pal, the medical establishment is on my side for this one.

Hope you enjoy a short life due to heart disease and diabetes. I only wish this on you as you are standing in the way of others trying to live healthy long lives, and contributing to the confusion already present.

By the way, did you call me a retard? real nice, what are you, 15? go eat some bacon and wash it down with egg yolk. Duh.



[edit on 11-8-2010 by Fifth Horseman]

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Fifth Horseman]

reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread599469/pg5#pid9389148 sourdough 4 life[/url]
ya know on second thought, keep up the dietary disinfo. It is great for my business. When discussing dietary history, do you know how often "well, I was doing Atkins', but" comes up? Thats right, after experiencing failure and discouragement, they wind up making appointments with me. You see I get paid for my diet and excercise information, quite well. So if you would like to see my success keep rising, please keep it up! Thanks for the help!



[edit on 11-8-2010 by Fifth Horseman]

reply to post by Fifth Horseman


Jesus christ....It never stops, does it? An endless supply of "holier than thou" directed at any member's post in direct contradiction of your own "educated" beliefs.

Unbelievable.

In my experience, it's personal trainers, like you, that get their information from a chapter or two in a personal training textbook, or perhaps a specialization course from an organization, that are ridiculously stubborn and consistantly wrong regarding dietary advice. You're doing nothing but regurgitating what you've been told by "proffessionals" that get their information from outdated and bogus science.

And...so it seems, you're no different from most of the personal trainers I've ever met:

nitrates present in most bacon

Fail: Green leafy vegetables are certainly the best source of dietary nitrates. And......the data showing nitrates as evil are extremely inconsistant, including many demonstrating the health BENEFITS of nitrates.

You just can't keep eating all the fat and cholesterol you want and expect good health.

Fail: Dietary cholesterol has almost no effect on serum cholesterol.

Fail: How does eating fat, and predominately "good" fat, translate into bad health? Remember, Vitamins like A and E, found richly in eggs, are fat soluble.

Do you want more? Or do you want sources?

-Dev

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
Wah wah, cranky Devo. You hate it when your your theories are tested don't you? Seriously, I'd take what you say more seriously if there wasn't such a general disregard for established medical science. By the way how are your FLAWS of HYPERTROPHY doing? HAHAHA Did you manage to hurt the guy asking for advice in that thread yet?

Yeah yeah, all the trainers you know (why do you know so many if you don't like them?) suck and are lazy and stupid. We get it. You have an aversion to those who like to accomplish. No prob. Again, this doesn't translate to all of them. Its great how you again try to limit what I know by stating what you think it is. You know what I think? I think you secretly wish you were, or maybe couldn't pass the test? You really try hard to be a trainer on ATS, too bad your advice would get you fired from any reputable gym. And don't call me Jesus Christ....;]

Originally posted by Fifth Horseman
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

 

Wah wah, cranky Devo. You hate it when your your theories are tested don't you?

I don't have any theories. But, if that's what you'd like to call 'em, when someone begins to test them, let me know. All you've done is repeat the same BS that's been preached for the past 40 years. It's the BS that you seem to have retained from your expert classes in personal training.

By the way how are your FLAWS of HYPERTROPHY doing? HAHAHA Did you manage to hurt the guy asking for advice in that thread yet?

Yeah yeah, all the trainers you know (why do you know so many if you don't like them?) suck and are lazy and stupid. We get it. You have an aversion to those who like to accomplish. No prob. Again, this doesn't translate to all of them. Its great how you again try to limit what I know by stating what you think it is. You know what I think? I think you secretly wish you were, or maybe couldn't pass the test? You really try hard to be a trainer on ATS,

.....but you're attitude and cockiness on this board is proving my point; you're projecting the epitome of inflated-ego personal trainers. Are you? I don't know. You're obviously smart (at least book smart). Of course, you could be copy & pasting from a book/webpage for all I know.

too bad your advice would get you fired from any reputable gym.

Keep looking for ways to attack me. It's really pathetic.

Seriously, I'd take what you say more seriously if there wasn't such a general disregard for established medical science.

I wasted my time with responding to most of your post...and I'll never get that back, unfortunately. But this is what really gets me. You can ridicule, attack and mock me all you want, but to state that my claims are medically/nutritionally unscientific......well, that hurts. Especially since most of the data I study are from medical/nutrition journals, nutritionists (M.S. and PhD's, not dietitians), strength coaches (CSCS), medical doctors and researchers that don't conform to confirmation bias in their studies and understand the concept that is Correlation vs. Cause.

The real problem is that you don't understand the difference between "established medical science" and established nutrition science. And, unfortunately for you, reading some textbooks and taking a few tests does not make you an expert.

Here, I'll waste more of my time trying to point you in the right direction, while your ego pulls you in the other (I just love how you simply ignore my points and skip directly to mocking me and personally attacking my credentials.....Good job, CPT ).

Here's what you say:

Four pieces of bacon contain approx 800 miligrams of sodium!

Truth is, sodium is a non issue as long as INSULIN levels are in check. I know you'll never read the entire article I'm about to post, but I'll link it anyway and I'll post a little info....

The (Political) Science of Salt

Decades have passed without a resolution because the epidemiologic tools are incapable of distinguishing a small benefit from no benefit or even from a small adverse effect. This has led to a literature so enormous and conflicting that it is easy to amass a body of evidence — what Stamler calls a "totality of data" — that appears to support a particular conviction definitively, unless one is aware of the other totality of data that doesn’t.

In other words, observational studies don't prove anything (correlation vs. causation). And such studies lead to confirmation bias, are easy to twist and if ALL of the data isn't provided it's easily misinterperated.

In summary, the article posted above, which is a detailed analysis of the scientific and political history of sodium damnation, states......Dietary Sodium is not the problem; the evidence suggests hypertension is independent of sodium intake.

Also over 1/3 of the fat present is saturated. Over half the calories come from fat.

I'm assuming that the your problem with saturated fat is......Cardiovascular disease. Since there have been multiple studies demonstrating an inverse correlation over the last 10 years, I'll just provide you with the latest published study, which just so happens to be published this month.

Dietary intake of saturated fatty acids and mortality from cardiovascular disease in Japanese: the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study for Evaluation of Cancer Risk Study?

Conclusion: SFA intake was inversely associated with mortality from total stroke, including intraparenchymal hemorrhage and ischemic stroke subtypes, in this Japanese cohort.

In that study, the poeple who ate the most saturated fat had a lower risk (keep in mind, however, epidemiology doesn't prove anything). A few great examples of saturated fat being heart healthy are is palm oil and coconut oil.

As for the eggs: simple, the whites contain no cholesterol, and over half the protein of the egg. Note that I said if it was a DAILY nutritional choice, I would do the 4:1 ratio. You just can't keep eating all the fat and cholesterol you want and expect good health.

Avoiding egg yolks is a joke. It's one of the most outdated misconceptions currently in circulation. I'll say it again....Dietary cholesterol does not increase serum cholesterol.

Here's a quote from the man that actually began the demonization of dietary fat with his Seven Countries Study:

'There's no connection whatsoever between cholesterol in food and cholesterol in blood. And we've known that all along. Cholesterol in the diet doesn't matter at all unless you happen to be a chicken or a rabbit.'

Ancel Keys PhD, professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota 1997 (1)

the medical establishment is on my side for this one.

....what, this one?

My nutritional education comes from N.E.S.T.A where I am a CPT

LOL ..... What? Now that's laughable. How you can strut around here with that cert is beyond me. Here, try these..... NASM, ACSM, Cooper institute or, my personal favorite, NSCA.

PS: I do wish I were already a CPT.....and no, I haven't taken a test.

post by technical difficulties:

" A quick google search www.google.com...) will show that the population of America is around 307 million, and as we all know Vegans/Vegetarians make up a small percentage of America."



post by burdman30ott6: "...and as expected, enter the first millitant anti-meat commentator."

Hmmm Doesn't the U.S. have quite a reputation for being highly militant?
That small percentage of vegetarians must have watched a hell of a lot of John Wayne movies.

www.metacafe.com...

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
Ok I read both links in their entirety (I'm a curious guy also, ya know). The sodium one is from 1999, a little dated don't you think? And the summation is that they can't agree. No suprise there. In the same article it is pointed out that some of the pro-sodium groups are potentially funded by the food industry who is notorious for using flawed science to sidestep health concerns in the pursuit of profit. Red flag.
As for the Japanese study, in the objective it states that the effects of SFA on cardiovascular disease are being studied on those with LOW intake of SFA.????? How about a study on those with a high intake? Also they are only studying the effects on stroke, how about COPD, atherosclerosis, metabolic syndrome etc. Also what was the source of the SFA? was it BACON? That is what we are talking about here, not palm oil or coconut oil.
If I mischaracterized either one, please correct me and we will begin again.
On to the egg. I said a 4:1 ratio. not a 4:0 ratio. I still eat the yolk, just not all of them. Your statement that dietary cholesterol has no bearing on serum levels would go challenged by the American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society to name just a couple. But seriously, who are they to speak, right?
So, you wish to be a trainer huh? I sure sniffed that one out didn't I? In this case I believe it is safe to say that jealousy breeds contempt. Why do you wish to become that which you loathe? Oh, maybe its because you have big plans to reshape the way this trade is practiced. I can see it now on your first client:
"How was your first day with your new trainer?" "Well, they seemed nice enough but I don't know if I trust what they say. They told me to eat all the bacon and egg yolk I wanted, not to worry about sodium or cholesterol in my diet, and to start lifting explosively right from the get go." "I'm confused, didn't your doctor tell you the opposite during your pre excercise routine physical? I would have thought it said you need to lower your cholesterol levels as well as body fat. Also, you have poor posture and muscular imbalances in your joints which would contraindicate explosive lifting." "Well, my trainer doesn't really believe in that stuff, he is an internet dietary guru and really only got certified so people would believe his mumbo-jumbo. Oh and they said I don't need a pre-screening physical just a waste of time. I'm so confused"
I wish I could be there when reality hits you in the face. It is one thing to have your own personal doubts about the way things are, it is entirely another to sell those doubts to people who are looking to you to lead. Let me know when you are up and going so I have a new field to harvest. They will need help rebounding from your mess. Please continue, this thread is now being watched by a couple trainers I know, and is quickly becoming the inside joke amongst us.




[edit on 12-8-2010 by Fifth Horseman]

Originally posted by Fifth Horseman
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

 

Ok I read both links in their entirety (I'm a curious guy also, ya know). The sodium one is from 1999, a little dated don't you think?

No. Not at all. Once it was concluded that sodium was the culprit, there was no reason for continued research to support the hypothesis. What's happened since then? Even more evidence that dietary sodium only plays a large role in a small percentage of people.

And the summation is that they can't agree. No suprise there.

They can't agree because the researchers in support of the hypothesis A) cherry pick the data, and B) use epidemiology as proof. The researchers that don't agree simply say that the data is all over the place and that the old hypothesis should be dropped and a new one should be formed based on the DATA.

In the same article it is pointed out that some of the pro-sodium groups are potentially funded by the food industry who is notorious for using flawed science to sidestep health concerns in the pursuit of profit. Red flag.

I think it's fairly obvious that this happens on both sides. Research integrity can be influenced by more than just food groups (see, pharmaceuticals, militant vegetarians).

As for the Japanese study, in the objective it states that the effects of SFA on cardiovascular disease are being studied on those with LOW intake of SFA.????? How about a study on those with a high intake? Also they are only studying the effects on stroke, how about COPD, atherosclerosis, metabolic syndrome etc. Also what was the source of the SFA? was it BACON? That is what we are talking about here, not palm oil or coconut oil.

According to your beloved and oft quoted AHA and other governmental organizations, saturated fat should be limited....REGARDLESS OF DIETARY SOURCE. Just so we're clear.....they make no distinction between tropical oils and animal fats.

On to the egg. I said a 4:1 ratio. not a 4:0 ratio. I still eat the yolk, just not all of them. Your statement that dietary cholesterol has no bearing on serum levels would go challenged by the American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society to name just a couple. But seriously, who are they to speak, right?

I'll go a step further...Not only is dietary cholesterol insignificant, but even if it did raise total cholesterol levels, there's never been a strong correlation between elevated total cholesterol and heart disease. In fact, once again, the data is all over the place.

I'm working now but I'll give you the science later. Because I don't care what the AHA, ADA, USDA, etc. say, the science speaks for itself.

-Dev

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
Maybe, you should start a thread titled DEVO VS. THE TRAINERS or something close, only because there isn't much happening here about evolutionary menu anymore. Thanks for calling me smart, no compliment goes unpunished around here.
So, what is your answer to my question about the Japanese study? Was it animal or other, or don't you know either? And it did say low SFA intake right? It seemed like you agreed with me, not sure.
And what would be gained by anyone (other than better health) by keeping recommended sodium levels low? How/why would that side of the science be bought? I can surely understand why the pro-side would be but where is the profit in the reciprocal? Your FLAILing again..but slowly earning your B.S. in Taural Scatology

reply to post by Fifth Horseman


If I must spell it out for you....

I posted one of the latest studies that demonstrates an inverse association between saturated fat consumption and heart disease incidence. Keyword = Latest.

This ONE study alone isn't conclusive, but combined with biochemistry, clinical studies and other observational studies ( there's been quite a few over the last decade) and after examining the original heart disease studies (frammingham, seven countries study), it's quite clear that saturated fat, through its effects on cholesterol, doesn't cause heart disease.

Still, the answer to your question: Saturated fat is the demon, remember? Saturated fat source is disregarded by public health policy.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
Ok, we agree then that SFA is the demon? And so what is bacon high in besides sodium and price? Are you saying bacon is good or bad? In moderation or at-will consumption. If moderation, why? What is the limit for good health per you, and why are those numbers correct yet not accepted? What are the combined effects on the cardiovascular and respiratory system of a high SFA and high cholesterol/sodium diet. How come people who learn to manage those can lower their bad cholesterol levels? What about artery hardening?

Originally posted by Fifth Horseman
ya know on second thought, keep up the dietary disinfo. It is great for my business. When discussing dietary history, do you know how often "well, I was doing Atkins', but" comes up? Thats right, after experiencing failure and discouragement, they wind up making appointments with me. You see I get paid for my diet and excercise information, quite well. So if you would like to see my success keep rising, please keep it up! Thanks for the help!

*sigh* I thought this argument was finsihed.

For the record, since last I posted I have weighed in last Friday and for giggles jumped on the scale this morning. I'm now down 75 lbs to 280 since Easter, on Atkins. As previously stated by me, every single measure of health from blood pressure to bloodwork has improved and has me soundly in the healthy category. The people who fail on Atkins are those who do not follow it to the tee. If you're on Atkins and you cheat, you'll gain weight and your health will suffer because the carbs play havoc with your body in the presence of all the consumed fats. So don't blame Atkins for your client's failures, blame their lack of willpower and self control.

Wow fifth horseman they really got you with there dietary disinfo huh?

look into the carcinogens(from overcooking) and nitrates present in most bacon. Four pieces of bacon contain approx 800 miligrams of sodium!

Here's a tip learn to cook bacon? Maybe you have heard of nitrite free bacon?

sodium is bad?? I thought it was an essential nutrient vital for cell hydration?

there has been a strong link established between the eating of processed meats

Salted meats have been staples for thousands of years, it was the only preservative at one time. Diabetes and heart disease are only recent epidemics, before the 1900's very few people contracted these diseases. Why is that the salted meats caused no harm but now its a problem?

Also over 1/3 of the fat present is saturated. Over half the calories come from fat.

Saturated fat is the best fat for fuel, sorry to bum your day out but its not the villain you've been led to believe it is. Saturated fat raises high density LDL which do not lead to atherosclerosis plaque, carbohydrates on the other hand raise low density ldl which are the real culprit in heart disease. I suggest you do some research because a lot of info has changed since they wrote those textbooks where you got all your info.

But in the new analysis, which combined the results of 21 previous studies, researchers found no clear evidence that higher saturated fat intakes led to higher risks of heart disease or stroke.
www.reuters.com...

These effects include the paradox that a high-fat, high–saturated fat diet is associated with diminished coronary artery disease progression in women with the metabolic syndrome, a condition that is epidemic in the United States.
www.ajcn.org...

An evaluation of data from Harvard Nurses' Health Study found that "diets lower in carbohydrate and higher in protein and fat are not associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease in women.

However, high intake of saturated dairy fat does not appear to increase the risk of cardiovascular disease[12] and Pacific island populations who obtain 30-60% of their total caloric intake from fully saturated coconut fat have almost non-existent rates of cardiovascular disease.
en.wikipedia.org...

Rancid nuts? Not me! I go organic and get them by the pound. Walnuts have plenty of omega 3 present, and the potential of increased inflammation from overdoing the omega 6 is negated by the deacreased strain on the heart by switching off the bacon. Also, nuts are high in fiber. Bacon, not so much. Its called eating a BALANCED menu.

Your have no idea how rancidity works huh? Organic has nothing to do with it. Unless your buying shelled walnuts farmer direct theirs a good chance that most the nuts you buy are somewhat rancid, especially walnuts which are primarily PUFA's. Bacon from pasture fed cows/pigs has a 1/1 omega 3/6 ratio, walnuts have a 1/4. The PUFA's probably aren't rancid in the bacon either. Fiber isn't an essential nutrient fyi.

My nutritional education comes from N.E.S.T.A where I am a CPT.

So what your saying is your nutritional education is bull#? Nutritional education is flawed, its based on # from 50 years ago but stuff changes on a almost weekly basis in nutrition. The only nutritional science that matters is anthropological nutrition and physiology. Unless you have any experience with either your just regurgitating useless bull# that will benefit no one.






[edit on 13-8-2010 by Sourdough4life]

Post cont...

the whites contain no cholesterol, and over half the protein of the egg. Note that I said if it was a DAILY nutritional choice, I would do the 4:1 ratio. You just can't keep eating all the fat and cholesterol you want and expect good health. If you are experiencing any auto immuno problems then maybe you shouldn't eat eggs period.

When blood cholesterol was measured at both six weeks and twelve weeks, both groups showed either no change or a reduction, particularly in their LDL (bad) cholesterol levels, despite the egg group increasing their dietary cholesterol intake to around four times that of the control."
www.physorg.com...

"We found that the dietary cholesterol in eggs does raise the LDL-1 and LDL-2 fractions but it does not impact the small, dense LDL-3 through LDL-7 particles that are the greatest threat for cardiovascular disease risk,"
www.foodnavigator-usa.com...

if you’re worried about high cholesterol levels and keeping heart-healthy as you get older, don’t push aside bacon and eggs just yet. A new study says they might actually provide a benefit.

the researchers found that there was a significant association of dietary cholesterol and change in strength. In general, those with higher cholesterol intake also had the highest muscle strength gain.

Cholesterol circulating in the blood also appeared to have contributed to greater muscle gain in the participants,
www.sciencedaily.com...

Eighteen subjects were classified as having the metabolic syndrome (MetS) at the beginning of the study, whereas 3 subjects had that classification at the end. These results suggest that including eggs in a CRD results in increased HDL-C while decreasing the risk factors associated with MetS.
jn.nutrition.org...

Hope you enjoy a short life due to heart disease and diabetes.

Actually I'll be enjoying my long life with all the bacon and eggs I care for. You on the other hand probably won't be happy in a couple years when you realize you've been tricked when your hair starts falling out and your willie doesn't get hard anymore.

By the way, did you call me a retard?

I called your dietary recommendation retarded(it is) maybe learn some reading comprehension skills?

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Sourdough4life]