Do you not see the difference between the studies I post, and the opinion pieces you post? Primary sources please

Yes cholesterol is a good thing. HDL is also very good. However the cholesterol in the diet is not required for health, and hdl can be increased from the consumption of mono and polyunsaturated fats from things like olive oil.

(January 25, 2014 at 7:14 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Do you not see the difference between the studies I post, and the opinion pieces you post? Primary sources please

Yes cholesterol is a good thing. HDL is also very good. However the cholesterol in the diet is not required for health, and hdl can be increased from the consumption of mono and polyunsaturated fats from things like olive oil.

You know, I got failed on a biochemistry exam for that very same opinion.

You do realise that olive oil, coconut oil, canola oil, sesame oil and any other vegetable oils contain cholesterol.....?

You are also aware then I take it that cholesterol is a precursor to many hormones and a solvent for many vitamins....?

To say that cholesterol is "not required for health" is very stupid and only proves you were asleep in biology and biochemistry class.

(January 25, 2014 at 8:46 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote: You know, I got failed on a biochemistry exam for that very same opinion.

You do realise that olive oil, coconut oil, canola oil, sesame oil and any other vegetable oils contain cholesterol.....?

You are also aware then I take it that cholesterol is a precursor to many hormones and a solvent for many vitamins....?

To say that cholesterol is "not required for health" is very stupid and only proves you were asleep in biology and biochemistry class.

If you said cholesterol is not required for health you would be wrong, it is not only essential for the production of hormones it is essential for the function of all plasma membranes! It is so essential that practically all cells can make cholesterol from other fats, and the liver also produces a whole load and excretes it into the blood stream.

No, what I said is that DIETARY cholesterol is not required for health. The ability of the body to produce cholesterol is well known since Konrad Bloch and Feodor Lynen won the nobel prize in 1964 for the discovery the biosynthesis of cholesterol.

Now some evidence, can the body synthesise cholesterol?

Yep
Definately
Even with diabetes? Yep still making it
Oh, and how do statins work? You know, one of the most successful drugs ever marketed? By inhibiting cholesterol synthesis by the body! That's right, the body can produce so much cholesterol, e.g. because of high saturated fat consumption, that it can produce too much!

The fact is the body produces loads of cholesterol, and while plants do contain some cholesterol it is measured in mg/kg rather than the g/kg of some animal products such as eggs. Here is a nice overview of dietary cholesterol

Anyway, as bennyboy said, please try to stick to the topic.

(January 25, 2014 at 7:14 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I think this thread is spinning off into a red-herring fest.

The philosophical issue with eating meat is simple:
-Humans suffer, and don't like it.
-We've therefore decided that causing human suffering is immoral.
-Animals suffer, but are not human.

The question is clear: is it causing suffering which is immoral, or is it only causing suffering in humans which is immoral? And the secondary question: how are we to decide between the two?

So far, people on both sides of the question have ignored the second question: it seems the actual answer (buried as it is under rhetoric and anecdote) is that each person has adopted the life choice that feels right to him. Is it that all moral systems are really a kind of democratic reconciliation of our instincts or learned feelings about things, rather than logic?

Maybe morality itself is wrong then, because I can think of no cases where this isn't the case.

Fundamentally all we can really know is that "I" suffer. We only make a generalisation to "all humans" or "all conscious beings" based on their similarity to ourselves. When meat eaters limit ethical concern to the suffering of humans they make an error of natural kind, in that rather than identifying the specific characteristics that would make other's suffering similar to ours, they assume that humans have an unidentified essential characteristic in making our suffering fundamentally different to animals.

(January 26, 2014 at 7:41 am)jg2014 Wrote:

(January 25, 2014 at 8:46 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote: You know, I got failed on a biochemistry exam for that very same opinion.

You do realise that olive oil, coconut oil, canola oil, sesame oil and any other vegetable oils contain cholesterol.....?

You are also aware then I take it that cholesterol is a precursor to many hormones and a solvent for many vitamins....?

To say that cholesterol is "not required for health" is very stupid and only proves you were asleep in biology and biochemistry class.

If you said cholesterol is not required for health you would be wrong, it is not only essential for the production of hormones it is essential for the function of all plasma membranes! It is so essential that practically all cells can make cholesterol from other fats, and the liver also produces a whole load and excretes it into the blood stream.

No, what I said is that DIETARY cholesterol is not required for health. The ability of the body to produce cholesterol is well known since Konrad Bloch and Feodor Lynen won the nobel prize in 1964 for the discovery the biosynthesis of cholesterol.

Now some evidence, can the body synthesise cholesterol?

Yep
Definately
Even with diabetes? Yep still making it
Oh, and how do statins work? You know, one of the most successful drugs ever marketed? By inhibiting cholesterol synthesis by the body! That's right, the body can produce so much cholesterol, e.g. because of high saturated fat consumption, that it can produce too much!

The fact is the body produces loads of cholesterol, and while plants do contain some cholesterol it is measured in mg/kg rather than the g/kg of some animal products such as eggs. Here is a nice overview of dietary cholesterol

Anyway, as bennyboy said, please try to stick to the topic.

Well we are talking about diet are we not? And you did bring cholesterol into the discussion. Those links only proved that in a healthy person cholesterol synthesis was not affected or to only a modest rise in cholesterol levels.

As for the diabetic group more study was needed as the results were inconclusive. As for statins.... They are prescribed like lollies and may or may not be of benefit as other medical conditions of the patient have to be considered. Which is really problematical.

(January 26, 2014 at 1:41 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Well we are talking about diet are we not? And you did bring cholesterol into the discussion. Those links only proved that in a healthy person cholesterol synthesis was not affected or to only a modest rise in cholesterol levels.

As for the diabetic group more study was needed as the results were inconclusive. As for statins.... They are prescribed like lollies and may or may not be of benefit as other medical conditions of the patient have to be considered. Which is really problematical.

Nope, Aractus brought up cholesterol. All the studies show that humans produces more than enough cholesterol to satisfy our requirements. If you are saying that this production is not in fact enough then show some studies demonstrating any deficiencies caused by low dietary intake of cholesterol.

The diabetes study is not inconclusive, perhaps you misunderstood what the paper meant when it says there is no significant difference between the production of cholesterol in normal and diabetic people. This is not an inconclusive result, it shows that effectively that diabetics have normal production of cholesterol.

Statins are one of the most effective drugs we have, so not quite sure what to make of your final statement.

(January 26, 2014 at 8:49 am)jg2014 Wrote: Fundamentally all we can really know is that "I" suffer. We only make a generalisation to "all humans" or "all conscious beings" based on their similarity to ourselves. When meat eaters limit ethical concern to the suffering of humans they make an error of natural kind, in that rather than identifying the specific characteristics that would make other's suffering similar to ours, they assume that humans have an unidentified essential characteristic in making our suffering fundamentally different to animals.

I think most on this thread have accepted the non-solipsistic extension of suffering (and the right not to suffer unnecessarily) to humans.

Some have argued that animals don't have the capacity to suffer, or to suffer "as we do." In my opinion, that's an ignorant argument. It's clear by watching animals, at least mammals and birds, that they are capable of great suffering. They react similarly to humans in many situations. It would be easy enough to dig up some scientific papers proving pretty categorically that animals suffer.

Others have argued that humans don't need to care: that is, that there's no reason to include non-human species under the umbrella of morality, and to extend to them the rights that humans enjoy. To me, this position is inexplicable, because the REASON people sympathise with each other is that they've learned as children to put themselves in other people's shoes. And yet people seem incapable of putting themselves in the animals' "shoes," and to arrive at what seems to you and I the obvious moral decision. I cannot see what logical idea or position draw the line after human suffering, but before that of animals that obviously suffer similarly to us.

Animals certainly feel pain and can experience a suffering experience similar to a human. I would never cause an animal to suffer for no reason. I get no joy out of hurting an animal. I have quite a few animals that are treated better than a lot of humans.

With all that said I still firmly believe it is quite acceptable to cause some unavoidable suffering to animals in order to process them for food purposes. I have been to many food processing plants both for hogs and chickens and I see no problem with what they do to them. It is quick and efficient.

(January 26, 2014 at 6:56 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I think most on this thread have accepted the non-solipsistic extension of suffering (and the right not to suffer unnecessarily) to humans.

Some have argued that animals don't have the capacity to suffer, or to suffer "as we do." In my opinion, that's an ignorant argument. It's clear by watching animals, at least mammals and birds, that they are capable of great suffering. They react similarly to humans in many situations. It would be easy enough to dig up some scientific papers proving pretty categorically that animals suffer.

Others have argued that humans don't need to care: that is, that there's no reason to include non-human species under the umbrella of morality, and to extend to them the rights that humans enjoy. To me, this position is inexplicable, because the REASON people sympathise with each other is that they've learned as children to put themselves in other people's shoes. And yet people seem incapable of putting themselves in the animals' "shoes," and to arrive at what seems to you and I the obvious moral decision. I cannot see what logical idea or position draw the line after human suffering, but before that of animals that obviously suffer similarly to us.

I agree that animals do suffer, and there is research on it. Animal do not have the same rage of emotions that we do and they don't waste time thinking about what happened in the past and don't think about the future. They see the present. They don't feel guilt.

You can cry about every poor hurting animals all you want. You can even protest against that nature of death buy being a vegan. I don't really care.
I do care about animals, that's why I learn about them. Animals die. If you don't eat the meat someone or something else will. It is a fact of life. It is in nature for death to occur. We have been killing animals for food for billions of years. I do not approve of abusing the animal for fun(we are not cats), but I do see it as acceptable to kill an animal with the intention of eating it. It's not enjoyable, death never is, but it is acceptable as a fact of life. Everything dies.

What is the difference from killing an animal and letting that body go to waste,and animal suffering to death and the body going to waste(aside from the scavengers), or killing the animal and using it for nutrients?

(January 26, 2014 at 3:30 pm)jg2014 Wrote:

(January 26, 2014 at 1:41 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Well we are talking about diet are we not? And you did bring cholesterol into the discussion. Those links only proved that in a healthy person cholesterol synthesis was not affected or to only a modest rise in cholesterol levels.

As for the diabetic group more study was needed as the results were inconclusive. As for statins.... They are prescribed like lollies and may or may not be of benefit as other medical conditions of the patient have to be considered. Which is really problematical.

Nope, Aractus brought up cholesterol. All the studies show that humans produces more than enough cholesterol to satisfy our requirements. If you are saying that this production is not in fact enough then show some studies demonstrating any deficiencies caused by low dietary intake of cholesterol.

The diabetes study is not inconclusive, perhaps you misunderstood what the paper meant when it says there is no significant difference between the production of cholesterol in normal and diabetic people. This is not an inconclusive result, it shows that effectively that diabetics have normal production of cholesterol.

Statins are one of the most effective drugs we have, so not quite sure what to make of your final statement.

No ... You did.

Do try to keep up.