> wrote in message ...

> The radical food cultists of both extreems cause me to wonder why they
> bother. Sure it is for them almost religious in motivation it seems and a
> zealot wants others to join the cheerleader squad. They also want it seem
> by nosecount that their ideology is in some fashion better rationalized.
>
> But aside from claiming some nutritional advantage they also demand that
> many other matters bow to a whole set of baggage they carry along. If
> someone thinks that animal fat is vital to sound nutrition and another
> that animal products should not be consumed for the same reason, well and
> good and full joy to them. But to demand that the rest of the ideological
> bagage be accepted as a package is irrational and when taking a step back
> to be observed even silly.

What the ...? This is recognisable denial and counter-attack response.

'When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their
flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended
for human beings, who are natural herbivores. - Roberts, William C. ,
Editor, American Journal of Cardiology. Volume 66, P. 896. 1 Oct, 1990.

Baggage, or statement of fact?

'Plasma lipids and diet groups
...
The most striking results from the analysis were the strong positive
associations between increasing consumption of animal fats and ischemic
heart disease mortality [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for the highest
third of intake compared with the lowest third in subjects with no prior
disease were 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat, 2.77 (1.25, 6.13)
for saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96) for dietary cholesterol;
P for trend: <0.01, <0.01, and <0.001, respectively]. In contrast, no
protective effects were noted for dietary fiber, fish, or alcohol consumption.
Consumption of eggs and cheese were both positively associated with
ischemic heart disease mortality in these subjects (P for trend, < 0.01 for
both foods).
...
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S

Baggage, or factual evidence?

'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
(white meat - fish, poultry)
...
Strong positive trends were shown for red meat intake among subjects
who consumed low levels (0-<1 time/week) of white meat and for white
meat intake among subjects who consumed low levels of (0-<1 time/week)
of red meat. The associations remained evident after further categorization
of the red meat (relative to no red meat intake): relative risk (RR) for >0-<1
time/week = 1.38, 95 percent CI 0.86-2.20; RR for 1-4 times/week = 1.77,
95 percent CI 1.05-2.99; and RR for >4 times/week = 1.98, 95 percent
CI 1.0-3.89 and white meat (relative to no white meat intake): RR for
>0-<1 time/week = 1.55, 95 percent CI 0.97-2.50; RR for 1-4 times/week
= 3.37, 95 percent CI 1.60-7.11; and RR for >4 times/week = 2.74,
95 percent CI 0.37-20.19 variables to higher intake levels.
...'
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/148/8/761.pdf

Baggage, or factual evidence?

You've been busted, hari, and no amount of blather will change that.