But I'm not full of shit, am I?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oh, Gavin. Where fore art thee?
Genesius Times had this yesterday as one of their lead articles. No real need to go in to it 'cause it's all satire, but it does p...
-
You know I'm a sucker for the side-boob thing... -
Like i said yesterday - It's a treasure trove of great cartoons. Enjoy... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ......
-
Trust me - these guys have very good taste... ... ... Follow this blog - there's special places and people I can introduce you t...
Absolutely correct. And there's this thing called homeostasis, in which more cholesterol is synthesized as well. There is a small effect here, on the order of a few percent reduction. If your cholesterol was, say, 220, you might get to the magically approved number of 200. Anyone who thinks a long term average 220 is different from a long term average 200 is either a physician who treats numbers or a fool. The role of cholesterol in cardiac disease remains uncertain; inflammation (of the artery wall) is certainly important, but whether lowering cholesterol from 220 to 200 affects the pathophysiology significantly is not proven (at best). And if your cholesterol is genuinely pathologically high (>300 or so) due to genetics or other causes, eating oatmeal and avoiding eggs won't cut it. But cholesterol is easy to measure, and 75 years of bad "science" from the Cardia Nostra has convinced generations of physicians and patients to treat the number. The food industry happily jumps on the bandwagon.
ReplyDelete