Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Heart Attacks, Cancer and strokes. Preventative approaches -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jrhana who wrote (536)	8/4/2008 5:00:38 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39299

jrhana, I think the world would be better off if you directed your ridicule at the fast food companies. Well, as I said, the authors, in understandable sense of self preservation did not do two separate test of cream only and sugar only, because they would have found that sugar only produced higher insulin, oxidative and inflammation response than sugar with cream, and that cream alone did not generate much of a response. But that would have invariably lead to "controversy" that fat is not really bad for you (as long as it is not trans fat, hydrogenated or Omega 6), and substituting some of the carb calories for fat has a beneficial effect. The authors did all they could to avoid this larger controversy, and stayed on a narrow subject. The effect is that their study will be much better received than if they opened the can of warms, and ended up being attacks by Ancel Keys disciples. Then, their work would either have not even been published, or it would have been attacked. Joe PS: Is there a place (link) the study can be viewed in entirety?