Home Cooking preferably LCHF Series - share ideas etc

kaypohchee

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
15,493
Reaction score
600
Earlier dinner tonight as the dumplings were hot n ready to be eaten with the Black Vinegar Ginger Dip

82vzQT9.jpg

XArUS18.jpg

uf1u2Wy.jpg

i15NKUl.jpg


Our yummy LC Dumpling Dinner !
MLPYc7Z.jpg

tK0bAKZ.jpg

dWgdaVX.jpg

we0LELW.jpg
 
Last edited:

kaypohchee

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
15,493
Reaction score
600
Are you sure this truly LC? :s11::s11:

We each ate only 7 dumplings for dinner
meaning used only 7 dough wrappers there

Well I would think the amount of flour + water in simply 7 wrappers there
Would be considered LC bah - guesstimate maybe 8 - 15 grams carbs at the very very max bah ?

Overall in the total grand scheme of things
IS LC when also compared with the Meat Filling etc .....
 

kaypohchee

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
15,493
Reaction score
600
Mon 14 May

I cooked up an LC Big English Breakfast Fry Up for our lunch since mom didn't buy anything back except $4 Sio Bak for dinner (but not used at the end with our Dumpling Dinner)
EHEwnUq.jpg

K3IHUo0.jpg


Tea
zNyDKSz.jpg


Made LC Shanghai Dumplings with yummy Black Vinegar Ginger Dip ! 7 crispy crunchy dumplings each there ....
LsW2su2.jpg

DNnNwSn.jpg

CmJecN1.jpg


After dinner blueberries n oranges
buVn653.jpg

tsqY4z7.jpg


I hope I have the determination/discipline to undergo longer 24 - 36 hour FASTING from Tuesday to Wednesday [not just my Daily IF=Intermittent Fasting]
Thursday got my Double Spa Sessions [probably tarpau back Beef Horfun from Mongkok Dimsum for dinner]
And then Fri got my Polyclinic Doc Appt & Fasting Blood Test results .....
 
Last edited:

articland05

Greater Supremacy Member
Joined
May 2, 2015
Messages
95,278
Reaction score
20,940
Her recipe threads are ok & harmless. It’s her LCHF preaching threads that need to be stopped.

same sentiments.
I saw the food pics and I'm impressed at the dumplings wrapping skills...is very gd in fact.
but I'm turned off when hit the WOT of capital letters mix with simi LC shiat...spoil my appetite
 

kaypohchee

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
15,493
Reaction score
600
Her recipe threads are ok & harmless. It’s her LCHF preaching threads that need to be stopped.

same sentiments.
I saw the food pics and I'm impressed at the dumplings wrapping skills...is very gd in fact.
Thanks for saying so but feel my dumpling-wrapping skills there only so-so as have seen some much better ones - but practice helps a lot ....

but I'm turned off when hit the WOT of capital letters mix with simi LC shiat...spoil my appetite

HOW is it 'preaching' :s11::s11:

Simply SHARING the Health-Nutrition-Diet stuff I come across only [not only LC/LCHF]
For discussion or acceptance/non acceptance - modification/adaptation to EACH specific user etc ....
NO Preaching - Forcing things down your throats - Pestering or Hassling etc

However if you STILL feel you are being 'preached'
Simple - just DON'T come into my threads/posts .... :s22:
No need to make yourself a MASOCHIST you know ?!? :s8:

Moreover I've had my BIG BIG Caveats there too
These are KPC WOT/WOP threads - Enter at your own risk

But if you do come in - kindly DON'T Troll & Personal Attack & Fight etc ....
Otherwise kindly Stay Out - such trolls/attackers/meanies etc NOT welcomed at all !
If you can't Disagree WELL or NOT in a Mean Way etc - DON'T come in here at all plz - See Below for details on HOW to Disagree Well


Read FULL Post at https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/114371751-post267.html

https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/981579912636231681

Simon Kuestenmacher
‏@simongerman600
Follow Follow @simongerman600
More
I love "The hierarchy of disagreement". We collectively need to learn how to argue and disagree in a kinder, more efficient way. The whole article is worth reading. If you are pressed for time just read the pyramid and laugh at the lowest stage. Source: https://buff.ly/2tU4hgx

Clare
‏@thebreadkiln
Apr 4
More
Trolls feed and fatten on words. Don't use them and throw emojis instead. Ass hat becomes sh*t and sh*t is also useful. So much distracting fun!

Thomas Lowery
‏@tal62
Apr 4
More
Replying to @simongerman600 @tweetzydeetzy
Theoretically I have to agree with everything in the article.paulgraham.com/disagree.html Unfortunately, when dealing with cognitive bias, somehow it appears near impossible to get through even using the best MO.


Graham Harris Graham
‏@GHarrisG
Apr 4
More
Replying to @simongerman600
Pyramid is missing a basement layer below name-calling - "You can't fix stupid"

DZ9Ful8WkAAv3Xu.jpg


DaaUpnwW4AAndJP.jpg


DaA7W0IW4AA3L_I.jpg


Chivo redactie
‏@chivo_tweets
Apr 5
More
Replying to @simongerman600
I had a variation on the theme. In case you were wondering what going Full Trump means? Well, its where narcissism and fantasy meet and make babies. ;-)


paulgraham.com/disagree.html
How to Disagree

March 2008

The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.

Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.

The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.

If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:
u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!
But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like
The author is a self-important dilettante.
is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:
Of course he would say that. He's a senator.
This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

DH2. Responding to Tone.

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.
Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.

DH3. Contradiction.

In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.

This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.
Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.

DH4. Counterargument.

At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.

Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.

There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.

DH5. Refutation.

The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.

To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.

DH6. Refuting the Central Point.

The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.

Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is.
So a truly effective refutation would look like:
The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:
<quotation>
But this is wrong for the following reasons...
The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.

What It Means

Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.

But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.

The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.

Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.

But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.

If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it.
 
Last edited:

gkhchay

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
20,548
Reaction score
118
KPC - these WOT isn’t sharing: it’s downright preaching & blasting at ppl. That’s why ppl are so damn pissed off with you, including me.

Even when I was still advocating LCHF, I wrote all the posts myself: NO cut & paste bloody WOT crap like what you’re doing to piss ppl off.

You want to share? Just post links & ask ppl: this guy says etc etc, what do you think? That’s sharing. Or even saying stuff like, “I think so so is absolutely right about this,’’ would suffice.
 

kaypohchee

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
15,493
Reaction score
600
KPC, as a GP, I would like to warn u that most DM pts need statins as their LDL should be less than 2.6 or even 1.8. If u insist on yr diet and high fat consumption and refuse statins and exercise, yr risk of heart attack and stroke is increased.

Hope you'll finally benefit/comprehend by reading this regarding prior dogma on Dairy Fat

It was PRECISELY to Avoid Statins that led me to the healthier LC(HF) way of eating in late 2016 {LC(HF) = Low Carb Healthy Fat} :D



https://twitter.com/ProfTimNoakes/status/996037568713158661

Tim Noakes
‏@ProfTimNoakes
Following Following @ProfTimNoakes
More
Dear Dr. Gottlieb: You're Wrong About Dairy Fat. An open letter to the FDA commissioner
http://bit.ly/2Gd4uMQ @bigfatsurprise



Elite Fitness
‏@elitefitandmma
32m32 minutes ago
More
Replying to @ProfTimNoakes @bigfatsurprise
@realDonaldTrump we need to educate Dr. Gottlieb. Can you make nutrition great again? The low fat recommendation has to go away @robbwolf


Douglas Ritz
‏@douglasritz
1m1 minute ago
More
Replying to @ProfTimNoakes @bigfatsurprise
"which indicates he is misinformed on crucial aspects of nutritional science."

He is a Trump appointee. How much more do you expect?


SkinMD13
‏@SkinMD13
26m26 minutes ago
More
Replying to @ProfTimNoakes @bigfatsurprise
Great read. Agree completely. And I can say 5 years ago I was on the other side of the argument. Objectivity removed that. As a clinician, I hope to change the mind of other clinicians, mainly to evaluate data (which is hard for some to do), and form their own opinion vs dogma


Iqbal Singh
@thefoolisingh
12m12 minutes ago
More
Replying to @ProfTimNoakes @bigfatsurprise
Fat satiates so we avoid futile simple carbs, and protects much like the micro nutrients


dr roth
@mrc314
14m14 minutes ago
More
Replying to @ProfTimNoakes @bigfatsurprise
If skim milk is better for you than 2%, and 2% better than whole ...
Why does whole milk cost more than 2% and skim?
Fat is more valuable, that's why.
End the #lowfat #nonfat nonsense now.




Public Health & Policy > FDA General

Dear Dr. Gottlieb: You're Wrong About Dairy Fat
An open letter to the FDA commissioner


by Anthony Pearson MD
May 13, 2018

By all accounts, Scott Gottlieb, the Trump appointed director of the FDA is doing a good job.

As Vox points out, he has announced substantial FDA moves to reduce cigarette consumption and is committed to improving competition in generic drugs.

However, he gave a recent speech at the National Food Policy Conference on "Reducing the Burden of Chronic Disease" which indicates he is misinformed on crucial aspects of nutritional science.

Gottlieb indicated he wanted the FDA to play a bigger role in guiding Americans to eat a healthier diet to reduce the burden of chronic disease. To facilitate this he is looking to define what foods are "healthy":

"We're keeping all these considerations in mind as we pursue rulemaking to update the definition of 'healthy' so it's based on nutrition criteria and food considerations that are more up-to-date than those being used for the current definition."

After updating the definition, Gottlieb wants to label food as "healthy" in a way that makes it easier for consumers to understand:

"To address this, we've had discussions about whether there should be a standard icon or symbol for the word 'healthy' that everyone could use on food packages."

Gottlieb goes on to bemoan a focus on nutrients rather than foods but in the very next sentence recommends a food, dairy, in a form that has one important nutrient stripped from it -- fat.

"Traditionally, we've focused primarily on the nutrients contained in food in considering what is healthy. But people eat foods, not nutrients.

"This is why we're asking the important question of whether a modernized definition of 'healthy' should go beyond nutrients to better reflect dietary patterns and food groups, like whole grains, low fat dairy, fruits and vegetables and healthy oils?"

Obviously, the first step in getting Americans to eat healthier is to make sure you are doling out the correct advice. But in his speech, Gottlieb indicates he has bought into long-standing fundamental errors. I wrote him the following letter hoping to correct these errors:

Dear Dr. Gottlieb,

Congratulations on your recent appointment as FDA director and kudos for your fine work to date. I read your recent comments on developing an updated definition of "healthy" and the importance of conveying that information to American consumers. I applaud your efforts in this area as well as your ongoing efforts to limit cigarette smoking and improve generic competition.

I am fine with guiding consumers to healthy foods -- but, I beg of you, let this determination of what is healthy be guided by the actual science, not prior dogma.

In your recent speech, you indicate that Americans are not consuming enough dairy and you recommend low-fat dairy, which implies that you and the FDA believe that scientific studies have demonstrated that dairy fat is unhealthy.

Five years ago I, too , thought dairy fat was unhealthy and recommended my patients avoid butter, full-fat yogurt, and cheese. However, when challenged on this belief, I reviewed the scientific literature on dairy fat and cardiovascular disease.

It turns out, when objectively analyzed (as I have written about here and here), there is no scientific evidence that supports the concept that dairy processed to remove dairy fat is healthier than the original, unadulterated product.

In fact, evidence suggests full-fat dairy reduces central obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and atherosclerosis in general.


As a result of misguided recommendations to avoid dairy fat, it is virtually impossible in most grocery stores to find full-fat yogurt or milk. The vast majority of the dairy aisle is devoted to various low- or non-fat concoctions, which have had loads of sugar and chemicals added and are arguably worse than a Snickers bar.

Dr. Gottlieb, I am not cherry-picking the data here or relying on out-of-date studies. I've reviewed everything I can find on this issue and reviewed it without bias. Evidence continues to accumulate supporting the healthiness of full-fat dairy.

For example, here's a 2018 review from researchers totally unaffiliated with the dairy industry that asks the question "Dairy Fats and Cardiovascular Disease: Do We Really Need to Be Concerned?"

After a exhaustive review, they conclude the answer is no:

"Recent research and meta-analyses have demonstrated the benefits of full-fat dairy consumption, based on higher bioavailability of high-value nutrients and anti-inflammatory properties ... In general, evidence suggests that milk has a neutral effect on cardiovascular outcomes but fermented dairy products such as yoghurt, kefir and cheese may have a positive or neutral effect."

Flawed Reasons for Low-Fat Dairy Recommendations

As I have written previously, I believe there are three reasons for the failure of major nutritional recommendations, such as the 2015 Dietary Guidelines For Americans, to correct previously flawed advice to choose non- or low-fat dairy over full-fat:

1. In the few randomized dietary studies showing benefits of a particular diet over another, non-fat or low-fat dairy was recommended along with a portfolio of other healthy dietary changes. The overall benefit of the superior diet had nothing to do with lowering the dairy fat but was due to multiple other changes.

2. The dairy industry has no motivation to promote full-fat dairy. In fact, they do better financially when they can take the fat out of milk and sell it for other purposes, such as butter, cheese, and cream. (Please read my interview with a plastic surgeon dairy farmer on the skim milk scam here.)

3. Saturated fat is still mistakenly being treated as a monolithic nutritional element. Although dairy fat is mostly saturated, the individual saturated fats vary widely in their effects on atherogenic lipids and atherosclerosis. In addition, the nature of the saturated fat changes depending on the diet of the cow.

4. Since authorities have been making this low-fat dairy recommendation for so long, they are extremely reluctant to reverse their advice. It lowers their credibility.

There Is No Scientific Consensus On What Constitutes A Healthy Oil

Finally, Dr. Gottlieb, I would like to briefly point out that there is considerable ongoing scientific debate about what constitutes a "healthy oil."

I summarized this last year on a post on coconut oil (which I fear you will also pronounce "unhealthy").

In many respects, the vilification of coconut oil by federal dietary guidelines and the AHA [American Heart Association] resembles the inappropriate attack on dairy fat and is emblematic of the whole misguided war on dietary fat. In fact, the new AHA advisory after singling out coconut oil goes on to cherry-pick the data on dairy fat and cardiovascular disease in order to support their faulty recommendations for choosing low- or non-fat dairy.

Canola and corn oil, the products of extensive factory processing techniques, contain mostly mono- or polyunsaturated fats which have been deemed "heart-healthy" on the flimsiest of evidence.

The most recent data we have on replacing saturated fat in the diet with polyunsaturated fat comes from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment performed from 1968 to 1973, but published in 2016 in the BMJ.

Data from this study
, which substituted liquid corn oil in place of the usual hospital cooking fats, replaced corn oil margarine for butter, and added corn oil to numerous food items, showed no overall benefit in reducing mortality. In fact, individuals over age 65 were more likely to die from cardiovascular disease if they got the corn oil diet.

So, Dr. Gottlieb, please continue your efforts to make Americans healthier but make sure the current scientific evidence actually supports your recommendations. Keep in mind the disastrous public health experiments of previous decades.

Skeptically Yours,

-ACP

Anthony Pearson, MD, is a private practice noninvasive cardiologist and medical director of echocardiography at St. Luke's Hospital in St. Louis. He blogs on nutrition, cardiac testing, quackery, and other things worthy of skepticism at The Skeptical Cardiologist, where a version of this post first appeared.
 

mummy1234

Banned
Joined
Jan 30, 2014
Messages
17,124
Reaction score
31
I am sure all yr beloved cardiologists espousing fatty diet are gleefully awaiting for more business for themselves. None of yr articles I see talk about metaanalysis or big trials, just anecdotes mostly.

What Drs use r drugs proven to improve morbidity and mortality as proven by big trials and research over years.

If u think u r so smart why don't u write in to Straits Times and see if they will take yr advice seriously or better write in to MOH. Lol...

Don't take statins for high chol but take fats instead. U must be crazy or have a death wish.
 
Last edited:

kaypohchee

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
15,493
Reaction score
600
KPC - these WOT isn’t sharing: it’s downright preaching & blasting at ppl. That’s why ppl are so damn pissed off with you, including me.

Even when I was still advocating LCHF, I wrote all the posts myself: NO cut & paste bloody WOT crap like what you’re doing to piss ppl off.

You want to share? Just post links & ask ppl: this guy says etc etc, what do you think? That’s sharing. Or even saying stuff like, “I think so so is absolutely right about this,’’ would suffice.

Obviously she’s not, as you can see with these bloody WOT; nothing but crap.

By posting the WOT I'm SHARING the original mostly-complete Full WOT and that ALSO gives me the opportunity to emphasise portions by highlighting
My preferred style is NOT to simply post links etc
I'm too 'lazy' to write everything up myself & prefer to just Copy-Paste the ORIGINALS of what I read instead [so no errors etc there too]

I HAVE considered both ljohn78's and desiresale's suggestions & have concluded that those who Don't like my WOT-Sharing can simply SKIP my WOTs altogether since MY WOT-Sharing is at odds there - they aren't going to benefit much from my sharing anyway the way I view it ..... so maybe BEST reserve my WOTs for those who are more RECEPTIVE to WOT-Reading etc :)

You & your herd are damned weird too - you also OK up there or not ?? :s11: :s8:
You've ALREADY determined that all my WOTs are nothing and simply CRAP
So WHY WHY WHY do you even bother to torture yourself by coming in here huh ???
You INSIST on being 'preached to & blasted at [as you put it]' meh LOL ????
No Logic or Sense there ....
 

spinning_quirK

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
38,277
Reaction score
4,509
Given that this is EDMW, I wonder how fast the comments will change if it turns out that KPC is a stunning 9/10 beauty with favourable vital stats. So much for defending the truth and protecting others from "insane diet choices".
 

kaypohchee

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
15,493
Reaction score
600
I am sure all yr beloved cardiologists espousing fatty diet are gleefully awaiting for more business for themselves. None of yr articles I see talk about metaanalysis or big trials, just anecdotes mostly.

What Drs use r drugs proven to improve morbidity and mortality as proven by big trials and research over years.

If u think u r so smart why don't u write in to Straits Times and see if they will take yr advice seriously or better write in to MOH. Lol...

Don't take statins for high chol but take fats instead. U must be crazy or have a death wish.

Well say what you wish
But I'm happy with my N=1 results so far with LC :s22:

You SHOULD [but ignorantly chose to be not updated] know that "High" Cholesterol is really not about Cholesterol but more of EXCESSIVE CARBS
It's SAD really your overt use of Statins ..... sighzzzzz :s8:
So easily conned by Big Pharma ....

I'm confident that my Lipid Profile readings should be great AGAIN
As I DID follow Dave Feldman's Cholesterol Drop Protocol
by deliberately having more Fat/Calories - the avocados etc I took last week
 

mummy1234

Banned
Joined
Jan 30, 2014
Messages
17,124
Reaction score
31
Well say what you wish
But I'm happy with my N=1 results so far with LC :s22:

You SHOULD [but ignorantly chose to be not updated] know that "High" Cholesterol is really not about Cholesterol but more of EXCESSIVE CARBS
It's SAD really your overt use of Statins ..... sighzzzzz :s8:
So easily conned by Big Pharma ....

I'm confident that my Lipid Profile readings should be great AGAIN
As I DID follow Dave Feldman's Cholesterol Drop Protocol
by deliberately having more Fat/Calories - the avocados etc I took last week

So post yr chol results then. And u r not on any chol or tgl med? Anyway, heard u r on metformin so much of yr results still due to drugs in the end.

I see some of yr food pics. Too much deep fried and oily food. Those r good to u too?
 

kaypohchee

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
15,493
Reaction score
600
Given that this is EDMW, I wonder how fast the comments will change if it turns out that KPC is a stunning 9/10 beauty with favourable vital stats. So much for defending the truth and protecting others from "insane diet choices".


Hahaha thanks :D :s13: :D

I've had my heyday in my youth ------> WAS is the operative word
was considered a curvy babe - running around weekends in my collection of bikinis etc .... loved 'flaunting' in sexy strapless/braless cross-over sundresses & such :)

I'm already 60+ - way past my prime
But take comfort at having some GREAT Memories etc
Glad I'd YOLOed etc so no real regrets =:p

Even my nice bouncy assets - envied even by females
Are now no longer as 'perky' n must bow to gravity sighzzzz
 
Last edited:
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.

Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards, Terms of Service and Member T&Cs for more information.
Top