"End of excerpts from: Ornish, D., Dr. Dean Ornish's Program For
Reversing Heart Disease, Random House, New York, 1990, page 61."

"1990" is 21 years ago and the entire science related to heart disease
has changed. The author of that book then popular is no longer held in
much regard in the medical world.


But all the same, the remarks of jay stevens,aka dr. jai etc. about the
source of cholesterol remains the same as in 1990. Humans produce the
largest part of cholesterol in their blood, what is consumed is a
minority part.

What has been learned in 21 years is that obesity not source of
cholesterol source is the vital factor. Eat too much and the excess is
turned by the body into cholesterol.

That is why with the soaring rate of obesity and cholesterol levels in
india we find the highest rate of heart disease and diabetes. Eating
meat is not the source of that rate.

Dr Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> > > Cholesterol Content of Common Foods in milligrams per 100 gram portion
> > >
> > > PLANT FOOD
> > >
> > > All grains 0
> > > All vegetables 0
> > > All nuts 0
> > > All seeds 0
> > > All legumes 0
> > > All vegetable oils 0
> > >
> > > ANIMAL FOOD
> > >
> > > Eggs, whole 550
> > > Kidney, beef 375
> > > Liver, beef 300
> > > Butter 250
> > > Oysters 200
> > > Cream Cheese 120
> > > Lard 95
> > > Beefsteak 70
> > > Lamb 70
> > > Pork 70
> > > Chicken 60
> > > Ice Cream 45
> > >
> > > Pennington, J., Food Values of Portions Commonly Used,
> > > Harper & Row, N.Y., 1985.
> >
> > Cholesterol is a waxy substance that's found in the fats (lipids) in
> > your blood. While your body needs cholesterol to continue building
> > healthy cells, having high cholesterol can increase your risk of
> > heart disease.
> >
> > By Mayo Clinic staff
> >
> > http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hig...sterol/DS00178
> >
> > High levels of cholesterol in the blood can increase your risk of
> > heart disease.
> >
> > http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/cholesterol.html
>
> Dr. Dean Ornish discusses the relationship between dietary
> cholesterol and blood cholesterol:
>
> International cardiology authority Dr. Dean Ornish concluded:
>
> "There is a genetic variability in how efficiently (or inefficiently)
> a person metabolizes dietary saturated fat and cholesterol. Some
> people can eat almost anything yet their blood cholesterol levels do
> not increase very much. (These are the people who sometimes live to
> be one hundred, and when interviewed attribute their longevity to the
> twelve eggs and sausage they have been eating for breakfast every
> morning.) Others find that even a small amount of dietary fat or
> cholesterol makes their blood cholesterol levels increase. Most
> people are somewhere in between on this spectrum.
>
> "Why? Drs. Michael Brown and Joseph Goldstein won the Nobel Prize in
> Medicine in 1985 for their discovery of LDL-cholesterol receptors.
> These receptors are located primarily in liver cells, and they bind
> and remove cholesterol from the bloodstream.
>
> "The more cholesterol receptors you have, the more efficiently you
> can metabolize and remove cholesterol from your blood. The fewer
> cholesterol receptors you have, the more your blood cholesterol level
> will increase when you eat saturated fat and cholesterol.
>
> "The number of cholesterol receptors is, in part, genetically
> determined. However, if the amount of saturated fat and cholesterol
> in your diet is low enough, then your blood cholesterol level will be
> low even if you don't have very many cholesterol receptors. In other
> words, even if you are not very efficient at removing fat and
> cholesterol from your blood, it doesn't matter if you don't eat very
> much of it.
>
> "The amount of fat and cholesterol in the diet described in this book
> is so low that these genetic differences become much less important.
> As a result, almost everyone in our program showed significant
> reductions in their cholesterol levels. . . ."
>
> End of excerpts from: Ornish, D., Dr. Dean Ornish's Program For
> Reversing Heart Disease, Random House, New York, 1990, page 61.

Doctors recommend big fat cuts in cholesterol

By Gina Kolata
The New York Times
Los Angeles Daily News
Monday, July 12, 2004

Federal health officials on Monday sharply reduced the
desired levels of cholesterol for Americans who are at
moderate to high risk for heart disease.

The new recommendations call for treatment with
cholesterol-lowering drugs for millions of Americans who
had thought their cholesterol levels were fine. For
people at the highest risk, they suggest that the target
level of LDL -- the type of cholesterol that increases
the likelihood of heart disease -- should be less than
100. That is 30 points lower than previously recommended.

For people at moderately high risk, lowering the LDL to
below 100 with medication should be seriously considered,
the report said. The advice for people at low risk
remains unchanged.

The recommendations were published today in the journal
Circulation and endorsed by the National Heart, Lung and
Blood Institute; the American Heart Association; and the
American College of Cardiology. The authors said the
change was prompted by data from five new clinical trials
indicating that the current cholesterol goals were not
aggressive enough.

The recommendations, which modify guidelines set by the
government only 2 years ago, will increase by a few
million the number of Americans who meet the criteria for
therapy with the powerful cholesterol-reducing drugs
called statins, and many people who are already taking
the medications will be advised to increase their doses.

Under the old guidelines, about 36 million people in this
country should be taking statins, said Dr. James Cleeman,
coordinator of the National Cholesterol Education
Program. But only about half that number actually do so.

In the report, the health officials addressed three
questions: When are statins merely a sensible option?
When are they imperative? And how aggressively should
patients be treated? The recommendations focus on the
levels of LDL, rather than total cholesterol levels,
because LDL is the target of cholesterol-lowering
therapies.

One change applies to people at moderately high risk --
defined as having risk factors such as age, high blood
pressure or smoking that confer a 10 percent to 20
percent chance of suffering a heart attack in the next
decade. Under the new recommendations, doctors have the
option of prescribing drug therapy for such patients if
their level of LDL cholesterol is 100 or higher, the
report says, and a level of below 100 can be set as a
goal.

Previously, doctors were advised to prescribe statins to
moderately high-risk patients only if the patients' LDL
levels were above 130, and the treatment was considered
effective if LDL levels fell below 130.

For example, following the new advice, a 57-year-old
nonsmoking man who has an LDL of 115 and whose blood
pressure, with medication, is 130, could now receive drug
treatment. Under the old rules, he would not have been
treated.

More at:
http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1...268604,00.html

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.

Dr Jai Maharaj posted:
>
>>>> Cholesterol Content of Common Foods
>>>> in milligrams per 100 gram portion
>>>>
>>>> PLANT FOOD
>>>>
>>>> All grains 0
>>>> All vegetables 0
>>>> All nuts 0
>>>> All seeds 0
>>>> All legumes 0
>>>> All vegetable oils 0
>>>>
>>>> ANIMAL FOOD
>>>>
>>>> Eggs, whole 550
>>>> Kidney, beef 375
>>>> Liver, beef 300
>>>> Butter 250
>>>> Oysters 200
>>>> Cream Cheese 120
>>>> Lard 95
>>>> Beefsteak 70
>>>> Lamb 70
>>>> Pork 70
>>>> Chicken 60
>>>> Ice Cream 45
>>>>
>>>> Pennington, J., Food Values of Portions Commonly Used,
>>>> Harper & Row, N.Y., 1985.
>>>
>>> Cholesterol is a waxy substance that's found in the fats
>>> (lipids) in your blood. While your body needs cholesterol
>>> to continue building healthy cells, having high cholesterol
>>> can increase your risk of heart disease.
>>>
>>> By Mayo Clinic staff
>>>
>>> http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hig...sterol/DS00178
>>>
>>> High levels of cholesterol in the blood can increase your
>>> risk of heart disease.
>>>
>>> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/cholesterol.html
>>
>> Dr. Dean Ornish discusses the relationship between dietary
>> cholesterol and blood cholesterol:
>>
>> International cardiology authority Dr. Dean Ornish concluded:
>>
>> "There is a genetic variability in how efficiently (or
>> inefficiently) a person metabolizes dietary saturated fat and
>> cholesterol. Some people can eat almost anything yet their
>> blood cholesterol levels do not increase very much. (These are
>> the people who sometimes live to be one hundred, and when
>> interviewed attribute their longevity to the twelve eggs and
>> sausage they have been eating for breakfast every morning.)
>> Others find that even a small amount of dietary fat or
>> cholesterol makes their blood cholesterol levels increase.
>> Most people are somewhere in between on this spectrum.
>>
>> "Why? Drs. Michael Brown and Joseph Goldstein won the Nobel
>> Prize in Medicine in 1985 for their discovery of LDL-cholesterol
>> receptors.
>> These receptors are located primarily in liver cells, and they
>> bind and remove cholesterol from the bloodstream.
>>
>> "The more cholesterol receptors you have, the more efficiently you
>> can metabolize and remove cholesterol from your blood. The fewer
>> cholesterol receptors you have, the more your blood cholesterol
>> level will increase when you eat saturated fat and cholesterol.
>>
>> "The number of cholesterol receptors is, in part, genetically
>> determined. However, if the amount of saturated fat and
>> cholesterol in your diet is low enough, then your blood
>> cholesterol level will be low even if you don't have very many
>> cholesterol receptors. In other words, even if you are not very
>> efficient at removing fat and cholesterol from your blood, it
>> doesn't matter if you don't eat very much of it.
>>
>> "The amount of fat and cholesterol in the diet described in this
>> book is so low that these genetic differences become much less
>> important. As a result, almost everyone in our program showed
>> significant reductions in their cholesterol levels. . . ."
>>
>> End of excerpts from: Ornish, D., Dr. Dean Ornish's Program For
>> Reversing Heart Disease, Random House, New York, 1990, page 61.
>
> Doctors recommend big fat cuts in cholesterol
>
> By Gina Kolata
> The New York Times
> Los Angeles Daily News
> Monday, July 12, 2004
>
> Federal health officials on Monday sharply reduced the
> desired levels of cholesterol for Americans who are at
> moderate to high risk for heart disease.
>
> The new recommendations call for treatment with
> cholesterol-lowering drugs for millions of Americans who
> had thought their cholesterol levels were fine. For
> people at the highest risk, they suggest that the target
> level of LDL -- the type of cholesterol that increases
> the likelihood of heart disease -- should be less than
> 100. That is 30 points lower than previously recommended.
>
> For people at moderately high risk, lowering the LDL to
> below 100 with medication should be seriously considered,
> the report said. The advice for people at low risk
> remains unchanged.
>
> The recommendations were published today in the journal
> Circulation and endorsed by the National Heart, Lung and
> Blood Institute; the American Heart Association; and the
> American College of Cardiology. The authors said the
> change was prompted by data from five new clinical trials
> indicating that the current cholesterol goals were not
> aggressive enough.
>
> The recommendations, which modify guidelines set by the
> government only 2 years ago, will increase by a few
> million the number of Americans who meet the criteria for
> therapy with the powerful cholesterol-reducing drugs
> called statins, and many people who are already taking
> the medications will be advised to increase their doses.
>
> Under the old guidelines, about 36 million people in this
> country should be taking statins, said Dr. James Cleeman,
> coordinator of the National Cholesterol Education
> Program. But only about half that number actually do so.
>
> In the report, the health officials addressed three
> questions: When are statins merely a sensible option?
> When are they imperative? And how aggressively should
> patients be treated? The recommendations focus on the
> levels of LDL, rather than total cholesterol levels,
> because LDL is the target of cholesterol-lowering
> therapies.
>
> One change applies to people at moderately high risk --
> defined as having risk factors such as age, high blood
> pressure or smoking that confer a 10 percent to 20
> percent chance of suffering a heart attack in the next
> decade. Under the new recommendations, doctors have the
> option of prescribing drug therapy for such patients if
> their level of LDL cholesterol is 100 or higher, the
> report says, and a level of below 100 can be set as a
> goal.
>
> Previously, doctors were advised to prescribe statins to
> moderately high-risk patients only if the patients' LDL
> levels were above 130, and the treatment was considered
> effective if LDL levels fell below 130.
>
> For example, following the new advice, a 57-year-old
> nonsmoking man who has an LDL of 115 and whose blood
> pressure, with medication, is 130, could now receive drug
> treatment. Under the old rules, he would not have been
> treated.
>
> More at:
> http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1...268604,00.html

Forwarded post from Pearl

An Interview with Dr. Neal Barnard

Excerpts from An Interview with Dr. Neal Barnard
'...
The key is that we have to go beyond the recommendations
that most conservative medical organizations have been using.
By that, I mean the American Heart Association, the American
Cancer Society--their recommendations will not reverse heart
disease. A 30% fat diet with lean meat, chicken and fish is not
going to reverse anybody's heart disease, nor will it prevent it.
You can look at such a diet and know that that's the case.
Chicken, fish and lean meats have cholesterol and saturated
fat in them; they have no fiber or complex carbohydrates.

Spectrum: Recent studies showed that fat reduction down to
30% did not help much. Because of this, some people now
are saying that you don't really need to worry about fats.

NB: Yes, that is actually one of the most devastating effects
of poorly done research, or maybe poorly interpreted research.
For example, there was a very large, and I believe well-done,
study of nurses done through Harvard University, but I think
that its results were so poorly interpreted as to have the
effect that you've just described. The results were as follows:
It has been known for a very long time that animal fat, and
to a lesser extent, all fats, increase the risk of breast cancer.
The reason is that fats increase the production of estrogen
in the body, and that, in time, over-stimulates the cells of
the breast and they become cancerous. There are other
reasons, also.
..
Spectrum: What about fish?

NB: There are several things about fish. I don't eat fish,
and there are many reasons why I don't. The good things
you can say for fish is that some of the the species are
lower in fat by a long shot compared to meat and even
poultry, and some have a little bit less cholesterol. Some
have more cholesterol, however, like lobster and shrimp.
Some actually are higher in fat, while some are lower.
That's the entire extent of the good news about fish.

The bad news about fish is that it all has cholesterol and
fat, and the fat is not the kind that anybody needs.
These omega-3 fats that people talk about are also
available in beans. In the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, there was a recent series of letters and
commentaries saying that people should probably get
their omega-3 fats from vegetables and not from fish,
because the omega-3 fish oils do seem to have a
variety of negative effects, one of which is that they
promote the production of free radicals. Free radicals
can damage your tissues and lead to cancer.

There is also a contamination problem with fish.
The February cover-story of Consumer Reports
talked about this. The contamination problems with
fish are ghastly.

Salmon and other kinds of swordfish are very
contaminated. There are even warnings that women
who are intending to become pregnant any time in
the next several years shouldn't consume several
species of fish. The EDB content is so high, and it
is stored up in human tissues. There was a study at
Wayne State University on women who had given
birth to babies. Those who never ate fish were
compared to those who did eat fish. The latter
group, even those who ate fish once a month or
more, had a higher incidence of babies who were
sluggish at birth, who had small head circumferences,
or who had a variety of learning problems.

Fish is a concentrated protein, and if anything we
need less protein. High protein in the the diet leads
to osteoporosis and kidney problems.

You don't need fish. '

You can read the complete interview he

http://www.purifymind.com/InterviewBarnard.htm

End of forwarded post from Pearl

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:13:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:31:42 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:13:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:10:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:mcnh775qsicul5rvlghib2g98uf0m6n7sj@4ax. com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You BOAST that you can't appreciate them. Are you boasting that
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>> appreciate them even when you want to think eliminationists had
>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>> with them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you want us to believe you can:
>>>>>
>>>>> a. never appreciate them.
>>>>>
>>>>> b. appreciate them only when you think eliminationists had something
>>>>> to do
>>>>> with
>>>>> making them of positive value.
>>>>>
>>>>> c. appreciate them when you think eliminationists had something to do
>>>>> with
>>>>> making them of positive value and also under some other circumstances.
>>>>> If
>>>>> so,
>>>>> explain which other circumstances and why.
>>>>
>>>>Your so-called "appreciation" is self-serving bullshit.
>>>
>>> So you can't appreciate lives of positive value even when you want to
>>> think
>>>your beloved PeTA had something to do with it.
>>
>>I said /your/ so-called "appreciation" is self-serving
>
> I accept that to mean you can't appreciate lives of positive value even
> when
> you want to think eliminationists had something to do with them being that
> way.

No you don't, you're lying.

"Doctors recommend big fat cuts in cholesterol"

Yep, and the sources of it should be cut as a result.

When we overeat the body makes it as the largest source.

That is why in india with obesity on the rise and the world's highest
heart disease and diabetes rate the sources one uses is not the vital
factor to reduce the levels.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:37:30 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:13:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:31:42 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:13:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:3ian77l1grh81tm9ata05ctcsu93f686a6@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:10:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:mcnh775qsicul5rvlghib2g98uf0m6n7sj@4a x.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You BOAST that you can't appreciate them. Are you boasting that
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>>> appreciate them even when you want to think eliminationists had
>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>> with them?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you want us to believe you can:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a. never appreciate them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> b. appreciate them only when you think eliminationists had something
>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> making them of positive value.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> c. appreciate them when you think eliminationists had something to
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> making them of positive value and also under some other
>>>>>>> circumstances.
>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>> so,
>>>>>>> explain which other circumstances and why.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your so-called "appreciation" is self-serving bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you can't appreciate lives of positive value even when you want
>>>>> to
>>>>> think
>>>>>your beloved PeTA had something to do with it.
>>>>
>>>>I said /your/ so-called "appreciation" is self-serving
>>>
>>> I accept that to mean you can't appreciate lives of positive value
>>> even
>>> when
>>> you want to think eliminationists had something to do with them being
>>> that
>>> way.
>>
>>No you don't
>
> That's a blatant lie since at this point it's all you leave people to
> believe about you. If you want people to believe something else, then you
> need
> to provide reason for them to believe something else. Duh!

Stop lying, nobody believes you, your so-called "appreciation" is
self-serving bullshit, I have proved that.

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:37:30 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:13:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:31:42 -0700, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:13:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:10:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:mcnh775qsicul5rvlghib2g98uf0m6n7sj@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You BOAST that you can't appreciate them. Are you boasting that
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>> appreciate them even when you want to think eliminationists had
>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>> with them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you want us to believe you can:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a. never appreciate them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> b. appreciate them only when you think eliminationists had something
>>>>>> to do
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> making them of positive value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> c. appreciate them when you think eliminationists had something to do
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> making them of positive value and also under some other circumstances.
>>>>>> If
>>>>>> so,
>>>>>> explain which other circumstances and why.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your so-called "appreciation" is self-serving bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> So you can't appreciate lives of positive value even when you want to
>>>> think
>>>>your beloved PeTA had something to do with it.
>>>
>>>I said /your/ so-called "appreciation" is self-serving
>>
>> I accept that to mean you can't appreciate lives of positive value even
>> when
>> you want to think eliminationists had something to do with them being that
>> way.
>
>No you don't

That's a blatant lie since at this point it's all you leave people to
believe about you. If you want people to believe something else, then you need
to provide reason for them to believe something else. Duh!