Cholesterol Myths

"The Cholesterol Myth."

No new conclusions, but lots of supporting evidence for things I have heard before and that are only logical.

Nourishing Traditions and Cholesterol

Just reading Nourishing Traditions (still in the intro). Interesting facts on how healthy it is to eat butter.

Yes, butter is GOOD for you. it is anti-bacterial and choke full of vitamins. The type of saturated fats in it are easily digested, not easily stored as body fat and is the substance used to build arteries out of.

High cholesterol is caused not by eating cholesterol but by eating sugar and trans-fats (man made fats).

Not eating Natural cholesterol to lower your blood cholesterol count is like firing your police force in order to lower your crime rate. The body produces cholesterol in order to repair the damage done by sugars and man made fats. Get rid of your sugar and hydrogenated fats and your cholesterol will drop.

Later note added:
Nourishing Traditions is a very interesting book detailing the helath benifets of a traditional diet. Modern science has had a biased opinion not actually supported by studies for decades. Fat is not the culprit in heart disease. If it was, our rate of heart disease should have dropped as we lowered our fat, especially saturated fat, intake. Instead, it has gone up.

Traditional (God made) fats like butter, lard, coconut oil,  beef fat are choke full of vitamins and minerals and other nutrients we need to be healthy. Man made fats are unnatural and the body doesn't even know what to do with them so it stores them. They then, in turn, cause the arteries to clog and- bingo!- heart attack.

Two births

I am sad. Gee, been saying that a lot lately. Actually I am very happy most of the time more filled with joy than ever before. But life has its sadness.

On the Momys loop, one of the mothers was told she didn't have enough amniotic fluid to sustain the baby. They tried an infusion and several other things. They ended up telling her that there was little hope the baby would make it. That baby is now two weeks old and plenty healthy.

Another mom (not on the loop but qualifies for it) was told the same thing. They decided to do a c-section. some of what little amnio fluid there was got into the mother's blood and she died within minutes. So very sad.

Would she have died if the doctors had left her alone? The baby may or may not have. I don't know. It just seems so sad and somehow pointless. 200 years ago the baby would probably have died but the other four children would still have a mommy.

God, help me understand how modern technology fits into this picture. When should we be thankful for its correction of the curse and when should we avoid it as unnecessary meddling, "the way that seemeth right unto a man but in the end it is destruction"?