(February 4, 2014 at 5:40 pm)Chuck Wrote: There is considerable evidence that artery fat build up is a symptom of scaring of arterial wall resulting from hidden arterial infections. It would seem preventing or promptly detecting and treating arterial infection is a less intrusive way of dealing with the issue than whole sale revision of diet.

We all know about good and bad cholesterol, and about how it is the buildup of bad cholesterol which leads to vascular failure. If there is "considerable evidence" that detecting and treating arterial infection is going to mean you can eat 10 Big Macs a day and still have squeaky-clean veins and a low risk of heart failure or stroke, then it's time for some links.

Right now, there's a simple solution: eat healthy foods, with not much red meat, and exercise. I'm not sure how you're going to show us a better solution than that.

(February 4, 2014 at 5:48 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(February 4, 2014 at 5:42 pm)futilethewinds Wrote: And how the hell are you supposed to detect that?

I don't know if method for clinical detection current exists. But there are common paths along which such detection can developed. One is using analysis of antibodies in your bloodstream.

It may also be possible to develop vaccines against arterial infection pathogens.

So you're saying that what I suggested is possible now, whereas what you suggested is possible only in theory.

(February 4, 2014 at 5:50 pm)futilethewinds Wrote:

(February 4, 2014 at 5:49 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Yeah, maybe he does, but you don't. You said vegetarians and vegans can't have heart attacks or strokes.

No, I said if you never consume animal fat in your lifetime, you cannot have a heart attack or stroke. I am a vegetarian, but I have consumed animal fat, so I am still at risk (though still much lower risk than others).

Link to that study, please.

(February 4, 2014 at 5:52 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Link to that study, please.

I'm not quoting a study. I'm quoting my biology book/professor.

(February 4, 2014 at 5:54 pm)futilethewinds Wrote:

(February 4, 2014 at 5:52 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Link to that study, please.

I'm not quoting a study. I'm quoting my biology book/professor.

So, argument from authority with nothing to back it up?

(February 4, 2014 at 5:51 pm)futilethewinds Wrote:

(February 4, 2014 at 5:48 pm)Chuck Wrote: I don't know if method for clinical detection current exists. But there are common paths along which such detection can developed. One is using analysis of antibodies in your bloodstream.

It may also be possible to develop vaccines against arterial infection pathogens.

So you're saying that what I suggested is possible now, whereas what you suggested is possible only in theory.

What I am saying is rushing onto what is possible now is rash if there is good reason to think doing what can be possible with comparatively little developmental risk promise to be much more economical.

Of cause sometimes one intentionally trumpets the rash path that could only be taken great expense by others, and play down the potential of the more economic but still embreyonic alternative, simply because one has a private agenda or emotional stake in the rash path which others paying the expenses do not share. I call that lack of professional ethics squarely in the realm of duplicity.

(February 4, 2014 at 5:55 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: So, argument from authority with nothing to back it up?

I would cite the book, but I'm not sure you'd be able to get your hands on it.

Well, if it's that important, and in a biology text book, you should be able to link at least something. I'm sorry to be on you like this, but without citations, you're just spouting unfounded assertions.

(February 4, 2014 at 5:58 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Well, if it's that important, and in a biology text book, you should be able to link at least something. I'm sorry to be on you like this, but without citations, you're just spouting unfounded assertions.

All I can find on the internet is a crapload of conflicting information. *shrugs* But I would think that if they are teaching this in college biology classes as fact, there would be strong evidence supporting it.

(February 4, 2014 at 6:00 pm)futilethewinds Wrote:

(February 4, 2014 at 5:58 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Well, if it's that important, and in a biology text book, you should be able to link at least something. I'm sorry to be on you like this, but without citations, you're just spouting unfounded assertions.

All I can find on the internet is a crapload of conflicting information. *shrugs* But I would think that if they are teaching this in college biology classes as fact, there would be strong evidence supporting it.

Sorry darlin'. That's not enough for me. Thanks for taking the time, though.