> 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"
>
> A perfect example.

So according to you the editor of the American Journal of Cardiology is
a radical food cultist zealot carrying a whole set of ideological baggage.

Who's looking silly?

> It was already said that one may choose not to consume
> animal products for claimed health reasons, just as some do the same but
> saying that to have good health animal fat should be consumed. My remark
> did not support either extreme, please read again.
>
> One hopes against hope in newsgroups that people would read more
> carefully.

I'm sure everyone's carefully read the cites you've just snipped.

That'll do.

Now, since you've apparently abandoned discussion of the science...