This is not proof. What kind of eggs were used? What was the lipid profile of those eggs? What were the hens fed?
It would appear that this study assumes that because a person ate more eggs, and hence more cholesterol, that the additional cholesterol MUST have affected serum cholesterol. It doesn't appear to take anything else in to consideration. Not all eggs are created equal.
This is not proof. What kind of eggs were used? What was the lipid profile of those eggs? What were the hens fed?
It would appear that this study assumes that because a person ate more eggs, and hence more cholesterol, that the additional cholesterol MUST have affected serum cholesterol. It doesn't appear to take anything else in to consideration. Not all eggs are created equal.
Completely incorrect. The further away from an ideal ratio you get with regards to n-3 and n-6 PUFAs, the higher you can expect your cholesterol levels to be.
"Max C." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Nothing to do with lipid profile.
Completely incorrect. The further away from an ideal ratio you get with regards to n-3 and n-6 PUFAs, the higher you can expect your cholesterol levels to be.
Wait... now that I've thought about your statement a little longer, I'm not even sure it makes sense in the context of the study I posted. Are you saying that the rats fed the high ratio n-3 to n-6 diet would have had more lecithin? If so, why? They were all plant oils.
"Max C." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Wait... now that I've thought about your statement a little longer, I'm not even sure it makes sense in the context of the study I posted. Are you saying that the rats fed the high ratio n-3 to n-6 diet would have had more lecithin? If so, why? They were all plant oils.
You didn't even read what I just said. Look at the study I posted and you'll find... as I just stated above, that "they were all plant oils." How in the world can you possibly feel justified with an answer of "eggs" when eggs were clearly NOT in the study provided?
Yes, it *is* my life, which is why I question people with just an opinion. You have provided no data, so I don't trust my health and my life to your opinion.
it *is* my life, which is why I question people with just an opinion. You have provided no data, so I don't trust my health and my life to your opinion.
I do NOT trust my health nor my life to the opinions of obvious frauds like Max 'the NOT so Christian.'
"Max C." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
You didn't even read what I just said. Look at the study I posted and you'll find... as I just stated above, that "they were all plant oils." How in the world can you possibly feel justified with an answer of "eggs" when eggs were clearly NOT in the study provided?
Yes, it *is* my life, which is why I question people with just an opinion. You have provided no data, so I don't trust my health and my life to your opinion.
Max.
You missed the point as much as with several posting you still have no clue how to respond on Usenet.
Perhaps I missed your point because you lack one. You keep spouting "lecithin" but then give no data to support your position. I have already done my homework on n-3 to n-6 ratios and found substantial evidence to support that skewing the ratio can be detrimental to one's health. You have presented your opinion to the contrary, but if you expect to be taken seriously, you're going to have to support your opinion with data. If you choose not to do so, then I choose to ignore your opinion. You'll find that most people in news groups will do the same. It's as simple as that.
It would appear that it is you that needs some education on using usenet.
"Max C." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Perhaps I missed your point because you lack one. You keep spouting "lecithin" but then give no data to support your position. I have already done my homework on n-3 to n-6 ratios and found substantial evidence to support that skewing the ratio can be detrimental to one's health. You have presented your opinion to the contrary, but if you expect to be taken seriously, you're going to have to support your opinion with data. If you choose not to do so, then I choose to ignore your opinion. You'll find that most people in news groups will do the same. It's as simple as that.
It would appear that it is you that needs some education on using usenet.
Max.
Skewing the ratio can definitely have negative result, especially when the 6 gets too high in relation. 6 too low (in relation) is extremely rare.
Of course no one knows to whom you are responding.
