Alan,
You seem to have an "on-again off-again" presence here. Am I
just imagining it, or are you disappearing from the list to
avoid answering messages in which you have been asked to
account for your generalizations, only to appear later,
posting more messages with yet more generalizations?

I am going to ask once again that you support the claims you
are making here. As Kirt has said repeatedly, "Prove it or
retract it."

> Fruit and
> animal foods do not combine as far as LDL (the bad cholesterol
> which comes from animal foods) is concerned.

I don't understand. What does this mean, that they don't
combine as far as LDL?

> Fruit and/or
> raw veggie eaters generally always have a very low LDL reading
> (for obvious reasons).

You do not know this. They "generally ALWAYS have a VERY low
LDL reading????" WHO does? Where have you seen such
readings? And what "obvious" reasons are you referring to?
They are not obvious to me, so please explain them.

> Meat eaters ("normal" eaters) generally
> have a much higher LDL reading and thus

"They" do? How do you know this about "them?" Have you seen
comparisons of LDL readings for the two groups? Are you sure
you're not simply mouthing popular lore, that you have most
likely read in some popular book, in this age of the
much-popularized  "low-fat, high-carb" diets?

> must have a significantly
> higher HDL reading as a high HDL can offset the negative effects
> of a relatively high LDL. .......
> ...... It is thus not the HDL and LDL values in themselves which are
> important but .......

The study examines the relationship between _HDL_ levels and
glycemic index, Alan. I'm confused, what is the purpose of
your explanation of HDL/LDL?

--
[log in to unmask] (Liza May)