Don wrote:
> "So I gather they still are promoting hydrogenated vegetable oil as being
> better than saturated fats? As we now know these fake fats are much worse
> than natural saturated fats."

I said "historically"-our texts are quite good now and have been on top of
the "trans" and hydrogenated fats issue for awhile. We have always been
teaching a few steps ahead of the texts, but now they seem to be caught
up-on hydrogenated fats are worse than saturated fats in that they not only
raise LDL and cholesterol levels (like saturated fats), but they also LOWER
HDL, which is what makes them one step worse than saturated fats in terms
of heart disease. I have never advocated hydrogenated oils nor saturated
fats. Neither are essential to the human diet.
>
>
>Don wrote:
" I've already pointed out that these studies used isolated, fractionated
> animo acids from milk or eggs. Note they say excess protein, they don't
say
> meat."

You have not researched my studies Don. The ones you quoted earlier were
older studies.
>
Don wrote:
> " will assume that they (the studies) all studies that compare
> vegetarians to omnivores. (1) Bone density determinations through
> absorptiometry or X-ray are highly subject to error, especially in
> unblinded studies where researchers may be biased towards obtaining
> predetermined results. (2) Subjects were matched merely for age, height
and
> sex, but not for body composition and dietary habits such as smoking and
> sugar, coffee, soft drink and alcohol consumption. A group of omnivores
> that smokes drinks and indulges in a calcium-poor diet of refined
> carbohydrates will naturally have more of a tendency to bone loss than a
> group of health conscious vegetarians. None of these studies can isolate
> just the single variable of meat eating.

Don- Don't you think that a good research study controls for these things
-take a good look at them-come on! Who do you work for anyway?

Cherie

>