New Politics Thread

The government can also buy billions in weapons and nobody gives a Fck. Go figure.

 

USA should just invade Central America and stop at the Panama Canal. That’s where we can have our border wall put in and we can use our new tax payers money to pay for it.

 

The Dems also never talk about Solyndra in Fremont CA when they received a $535 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee, the first recipient of a loan guarantee under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus program. Or the a $25.1 million tax break received from California's Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority. I use to drive by their brand new shiny building every day and its just sitting there empty since 2011. Who paid for this?

 

Or put tanks along the border....

 

Commie Fan will say protein is to blame next

 

Heart disease and stroke are highest in countries with low saturated fat consumption.
from:
https://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?p=8531434
Background: In October 2011, the British Journal of Nutrition published a guest editorial by 13 scientists (Pedersen et al). In this article, they explain the importance of reducing saturated fat intake to limit heart disease risk (1). Because I found that the base of their information was scientifically incorrect, I decided to write a so-called "letter to the editor", which was also published (2). This was followed by a response by Pedersen et al (3) and again, by a response from me (4). All responses got published in the British Journal of Nutrition.

"The articles contain a lot of information, so I decided to go for a stepwise analysis of the contents.



Part 1. Natural fats do not negatively influence cholesterol.

Pedersen et al are concerned that saturated fatty acids (SFA) may no longer be considered an important cause of coronary heart disease (CHD):

Quote:
Uncertainty has recently been expressed as to the role of SFA for the development of atherosclerosis and CHD.
Our main concern, however, is to emphasise the importance of lowering SFA intakes to reduce blood LDL-cholesterol levels at a time when there are tendencies to downplay the importance of SFA.

"I was surprised about the 2nd sentence, because the importance of HDL-cholesterol in this association was not mentioned. Two (Katan MB and Mensink RP) of the 13 scientists involved have published an article in the past (5). The conclusions in that article seem completely opposite to their current conclusion. In a meta-analysis of 60 controlled trials they found that replacing carbohydrates by saturated fats will increase both "bad" LDL-cholesterol levels and "good" HDL-cholesterol levels, without changing the ratio total/HDL-cholesterol. Based on this they stated that:"

Quote:
Results suggest that isoenergetic replacement of SFA with carbohydrates does not improve the serum total:HDLcholesterol. All natural fats contain both SFA, which do not change this ratio, and unsaturated fatty acids, which lower it. As a result, even the replacement of dairy fat and tropical fats with carbohydrates will increase the ratio of total to HDL-cholesterol.

The authors gave us 2 warnings:

Quote:
Results of prospective observational studies, controlled clinical trials with drugs, mechanistic studies, and genetic 'experiments of nature' all strongly suggest that high concentrations of HDL-cholesterol in the circulation help to prevent coronary artery disease and other CVD. Given these observations, it appears imprudent to ignore the marked effects of diet on HDL-cholesterol.

The effects of dietary fats on total:HDL-cholesterol may differ markedly from their effects on LDL. The effects of fats on these risk markers should not in themselves be considered to reflect changes in risk but should be confirmed by prospective observational studies or clinical trials.

And in 2007, a meta-analysis of 61 prospective studies article was published in the Lancet (6). The authors concluded that including HDL-cholesterol increased the predictive value of non-HDL cholesterol (LDL-cholesterol) for ischemic heart disease (IHD):

Quote:
Of various simple indices involving HDL cholesterol, the ratio total/HDL cholesterol was the strongest predictor of IHD mortality (40% more informative than non-HDL cholesterol and more than twice as informative as total cholesterol).

Conclusion Part 1: In 2003, Katan MB and Mensink RP concluded that even animal fats will have a positive effect on the ratio total/HDL cholesterol, compared to carbohydrates. They stressed that the effect from dietary fats on HDL-cholesterol should not be ignored and that effects on cholesterol should not in themselves be considered to reflect changes in heart disease risk.
In 2011, the authors completely changed their mind, while they did not reject de results they published earlier. All of a sudden, changes in LDL-cholesterol - and LDL-cholesterol only - are supposed to be the single one predictor of changes in heart disease risk.


Part 2. Do trends in fat intake correlate to changes in heart disease?

Pedersen et al state that:

Quote:
There have been substantial reductions in mortality from CVD (cardiovascular diseases) in North America, Western Europe and Australasia over the last 30 years that reflect successful national public health policies to reduce the intake of SFA (saturated fatty acids), in addition to promoting smoking cessation and controlling blood pressure.


As they state themselves "in addition to promoting smoking cessation and controlling blood pressure". If these changes occur at the same time, how do we know which change "caused" any possible change in CVD?
In addition, no references were given to back up these "claims".

I did find an article providing data about trends in saturated fat intake in America (7). It showed that the energy% from intake of saturated fat slightly decreased over time, while the absolute intake increased:

Quote:
A report from the US Department of Agriculture and the US Department of Health and Human Services states that no reductions were found in the intake of SFA in the American diet over the period 1989–1 to 2005–6. Indeed, although the intake of SFA as percentage of total energy (en%) was slightly higher over the first time period (12·3), than over the last three time periods (11·2–11·4), the total amount of SFA in g/d increased slightly over this time (25·7–27·8).


And I gave out the following warning:

Quote:
More importantly, it is not possible to unequivocally associate changes in SFA intake to changes in CHD mortality over time, since many changes in diet, lifestyle, diagnosis and pharmacological treatments have occurred over the last 30 years.


A bit further in the text, the authors state:

Quote:
That replacement of SFA by a variety of carbohydrate-containing foods also reduces CHD risk may be inferred from ecological studies, e.g. in Finland. CHD was almost non-existent in rural China when mean cholesterol levels were approximately 3.5 mmol/L with total fat intakes only about 15% of energy and extremely low intakes of SFA. These observations, replicated in many countries, should not be ignored.

This time, 2 references were given (8, 9). Both referred to "The China Study". But no trends in fat intake were examined in the articles referred to. No references were given that correlated saturated fat intake to heart disease in Finland.

How Pedersen et al. responded to my findings, can be found in their response to my letter. They concluded that:

Quote:
Hoenselaar expresses doubt if a reduction in SFA intake has occurred concurrent with the decline in CHD mortality in developed populations. This is illustrated by citing the small relative reduction of SFA intake in the US population during the period 1990-5/6.


This is an incorrect reflection of the trends in SFA intake I mentioned earlier. As I showed before SFA intake increased from 25.7 to 27.8 g/day. The reason why the relative contribution showed a small decline, is that intakes of energy from other nutrients (in this case carbohydrates) increased even more. Therefore, the strongest change is an absolute and relative increase in carbohydrate intake.

Pedersen et al. continue:

Quote:
During several decades before the turn of the 20th century, SFA intake declined and PUFA intake increased in the USA. There are also reports of declining SFA intake concomitant with the reduction in CHD mortality in several other populations. In all Nordic countries, SFA intake has decreased compared to the levels in the 1960s. The decline has been particularly noticeable in the Finnish population that has experienced the most rapid fall in CHD mortality in the world.

New Zealand may be cited as another example.


This time the authors refer to 5 articles (10-14). No correlations were made between saturated fat intake and heart disease in any of the articles referred to. What these articles actually described were trends in fat intake over different time periods for three different populations. The rest of my comment was as follows:

Quote:
Two reports described fat intake in the USA. The changes in SFA and PUFA intake were accompanied by a decrease in MUFA intake. Since these three changes were of equal size and took place at the same time, it will take other data to put them in perspective before they can be possibly directly linked to CHD. Two other reports described fat intake in Nordic countries, with an emphasis on Finland. Again, changes in SFA and PUFA intake took place in the same time frame. This time, these changes were accompanied by a decrease in trans-fat (TFA) intake. The New Zealand report is the only article which might suggest a direct link between SFA and CHD. It shows a trend in decreased CHD rates over time, and (in another part of the text) it is mentioned that SFA consumption decreased over time. However, no direct correlation was examined.


I also showed that both heart disease and stroke mortality are highest in countries with low saturated fat consumption. This can be seen in part 3.

Conclusion Part 2: An international group of scientists states that mortality from cardiovascular diseases has decreased over the past decades. And that this decrease is (partially) caused by a decrease in saturated fat intake. The scientists refer to several articles, none of which examined this correlation. I find it very disturbing that a group of 13 scientists draws firm conclusions, but is not able to find one single study as a base for their findings.
Equally disturbing are their interpretations of simple correlations. If there is a large absolute increase in carbohydrate intakes over the past decades in the USA, the relative contribution of saturated fats will automatically decrease. But this does not mean that saturated fat intakes decreased. In fact, intakes of saturated fats increased from 25.7 to 27.8 g/day! The most obvious conclusion would then be that an increased intake of carbohydrates (or small increase in saturated fat intake) was linked to lower mortality from CVD. Instead, Pedersen et al. suggest that a decrease in saturated fat intake was the cause of lower mortality rates from CVD in the USA.



Part 3. Heart disease and stroke mortality are highest in countries with low saturated fat consumption.

Background: In 1993, Artaud-Wild et al published an article linking per capita intakes of saturated fat to mortality rates from coronary heart disease (CHD) (15). A global analysis was done including data from 40 countries. Figure 2 shows that a strong positive correlation (R = 0.78) was found between a "cholesterol-saturated fat index" and CHD mortality among men. This correlation was similar for the % of energy from saturated fat intake (R = 0.77).

Figure 2:


Is more recent data available?
No articles about this correlation were published since. But in 2008, the British Heart Foundation published the European Cardiovascular Disease Statistics (16). The report included European mortality rates from both CHD and stroke for 1972 to 2005 for both men and women. In addition, it provided data about European per capita consumption of saturated fat for the year 1998. This data gives us the possibility to link saturated fat intake to mortality rates in 1998. A total of 41 countries had available data about both saturated fat intake and mortality rates for this year. I used a simple Pearson correlation to examine if a significant correlation could be found. The effect can be seen in figure 3.

Figure 3:


Results: unexpectedly, the highest mortality rates from CHD were found in the countries with the lowest intakes of saturated fats. The correlation was significant (2-tailed significant at < 0.01). The R2 for linearity = 0.34.

How can this difference in effect be explained?
•Artaud-Wild et al used data from the year 1977, I used data from 1998.
•Artaud-Wild et al used mortality rates that were not adjusted for age. I used age-standardized mortality rates.
•Artaud-Wild et al used a global analysis including 40 countries. I used a European analysis including 41 countries. Sadly, I could not find data about more countries.

Were results similar looking at women or at stroke mortality?
Pearson correlations showed that higher mortality rates were consistently linked to lower intakes of saturated fat (two-tailed significance = < 0.01 for all). In addition to the correlation shown in figure 2, I also examined 3 other end points. Correlations were slightly stronger than the one seen in figure 3.

Results are as follows:
•Male stroke mortality: R2 = 0.38
•Female CHD mortality: R2 = 0.43
•Female stroke mortality: R2 = 0.43

Conclusion Part 3: a global analysis including 40 countries showed that higher intakes of saturated fat were linked to higher mortality rates from coronary heart disease among men in 1977. But a European analysis including 41 countries showed that lower intakes of saturated fat were linked to higher mortality rates from both coronary heart disease and stroke in both genders in 1998...............................




References:
1) Pedersen JI et al. (2011) The importance of reducing SFA to limit CHD. Br J Nutr 106, 961-963. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21906408
2) Hoenselaar R (2011). The importance of reducing SFA intake to limit CHD risk. Br J Nutr. 2012 Feb;107(3):450-1; author reply 452-4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22136957
3) Pedersen JI et al (2012). Response to Hoenselaar from Pedersen et al. Br J Nutr 107, 452-454. http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...ine&aid=8479188
4) Hoenselaar R (2012). Further response from Hoenselaar. Br J Nutr [Epub ahead of print]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22377374
5) Mensink RP et al (2003). Effects of dietary fatty acids and carbohydrates on the ratio of serum total to HDL cholesterol and on serum lipids and apolipoproteins: a meta-analysis of 60 controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 May;77(5):1146-55. http://www.ajcn.org/content/77/5/1146.long
6) Prospective Studies Collaboration (2007) Blood cholesterol and vascular mortality by age, sex, and blood pressure: a meta-analysis of individual data from 61 prospective studies with 55,000 vascular deaths. Lancet 370, 1829-1839. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18061058
7) US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Health and Human Services (2010) Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-%...rt.htm(accessed 20 September 2011).
8) Campbell TC et al (1998). Diet, lifestyle, and the etiology of coronary artery disease: the Cornell China study. Am J Cardiol. 1998 Nov 26;82(10B):18T-21T. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9860369
9) Campbell TC et al (1999). Energy balance: interpretation of data from rural China. Toxicol Sci. 1999 Dec;52(2 Suppl):87-94. http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/co...suppl_1/87.long
10) Committee on Diet and Health (1989) Dietary intake and nutritional status: trends and assessment. In Diet and Health. Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk, chapter 3, pp. 41–84. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy Press.
11) Stephen et al (1990). Trends in individual consumption of dietary fat in the United States, 1920–1984. Am J Clin Nutr 52, 457–469. http://www.ajcn.org/content/52/3/457.long
12) The Project Group: Food Consumption in the Nordic Countries (2001) National, Annual Food Balance Sheets (in Swedish) TemaNord 2001:527. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.
13) Valsta LM et al (2010). Explaining the 25-year decline of serum cholesterol by dietary changes and use of lipid-lowering medication in Finland. Public Health Nutr 13, 932–938. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20513263
14) Ministry of Health and the University of Auckland (2003). Nutrition and the Burden of Disease: NewZealand 1997–2011. Public Health Intelligence Occasional Bulletin No. 17.Wellington: Ministry of Health. http://www.maorihealth.govt.nz/moh.nsf/
15) Artaud-Wild SM et al. Differences in coronary mortality can be explained by differences in cholesterol and saturated fat intakes in 40 countries but not in France and Finland. A paradox. Circulation. 1993 Dec;88(6):2771-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8252690
16) Allender S et al. European cardiovascular disease statistics 2008 edition. http://www.bhf.org.uk/idoc.ashx?doc...3e24&version=-1

Ouch, no cherry picking science there!


You can

but you can't hide


Long Term Keto Guy



Long Term Vegan guy
from skinny fat, to just skinny rack



You decide.

 

23% of criminals in Federal Prison in the United States are illegal aliens. 292k crimes committed by illegal aliens between 2011 and 2018 in Texas.

But... democrats need their votes, Americans be damned.

 

"I reject your statistics"!

- Nancy Pelosi!

 

Declare a national emergency, use funds to build the wall. Take your chances at the Supreme Court. Hope John Roberts doesn't stab us in the back again.

 

It has passed the House, the GOP have a majority in the Senate. If they fund it it can pass unopposed.

 

frightening.

 

You keep posting this but they can't! I just heard on FOX, (right wing as they are), you still need 60 Senate votes and they won't use the nuclear option which the GOP won't use. Therefore, they are at a stalemate.

 

you're wrong, it's because of the "rogue" elements within the GOP. Trump should be calling them out but he isn't because this whole thing is a farce.

 

GOP and Dems are both a farce! I can't believe how much time they are wasting and that they care about power than their own country. They reminds me of a bunch of kids. What a joke!

 

Falvo is right and you're wrong

Senate GOP rejects Trump’s call for ‘nuclear option’ to get border wall funding

https://nypost.com/2018/12/21/senat...or-nuclear-option-to-get-border-wall-funding/

 

what am I wrong about what exactly? Have you read and understood the article?

Its saying that Trump wants to pass a law through the Senate to change the Senate rules so that any and all bills will be filibuster proof. If he can't get approval for wall funding how in fvck could he possibly eliminate an American tradition dating back over a century. His own party is publicly shutting him down.

In other words it makes no logical sense, bullshit on top of bullshit.

But my original question that I asked yesterday remains. When did the Dems filibuster this border wall bill? Put it to the vote and let them flibuster. The problem is actually the fiscal conservatives in the GOP won't even give him a simple majority. In the House vote, 8 GOP reps were against it.

 

The more I see all this crap go down between both parties, the more I see why so many people are disgusted with politics.

We have this crap cloud with the Mueller investigation that Dems and other Never Trump GOP members don’t want to see an end to and then you have this farce of a government shutdown. How in the world do either side ever get anything done? For that matter, how can there be so much hate between Democrats and Republicans.

The more it all goes on , the more I believe it’s not really about power but I’m starting to believe individuals on both sides are in this for money. I mean is money power and if not why care so much about it? Why does being so powerful matter so much to both parties? In the end , this all has got to come down to money. Whomever believes politicians aren’t crooked and aren’t in this for money have to be living under a rock. Why else would they all care so much about all of this if it doesn’t come down to more money for each member?

 

Everyone wants to feel like a big man mob boss.

 

Communist weasel alert!!!!

The new face of America's far left turns out to be another entitled millennial. Ocasio-Cortez had a pretty affluent upbringing. A far cry from the official story she's been given.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...ortez-grew-up-in-one-of-richest-u-s-counties/

 

She is so ignorant it’s not even funny. She should go back to bartending.

 

People getting upset by this little girl are falling for the ploy. No one should stress it. She's going to do more damage to her own party than good anyway.