Well, I used to believe in doctors, too, but if we listened to doctors,  
we'd all be on low fat.  My own inability to reconcile how good I felt  
when I started low carbing, relative to how everyone said that I "needed"  
carbs for "energy" and how I "needed" a low fat diet to be healthy, lead  
to the downfall of my beliefs and a search for real answers.  After all, I  
was eating basically no carbs, yet woke up one day and felt fantastic.  
Why?  I mean, how could that happen, when it went against what basically  
all media and all doctors said was the correct diet?  I mean, I "had" to  
eat grains, right?  Steak was the epitome of all evil, wasn't it?  All I  
had to do was continue to woof down rice cakes and brown rice, beans, and  
oats, and I'd hit nutritional nirvana.  Sadly, all I hit was a  
skyrocketing blood glucose level and horrible blood sugar control.  I was  
at one time every bit the lemming and just as delusional as the original  
poster.  Because of my experience with low carb, which flew in the face of  
traditional teachings, I just decided to go out and do my own research in  
order to control my own health.  I still am unsure as to what the "real"  
diet should be, but I have reached the conclusion that saturated fat isn't  
the evil its portrayed to be.  Similarly, the distinction between "good"  
cholesterol and "bad" cholesterol is either completely wrong or a gross  
misconception as to what really causes heart disease.  The mantra to eat  
more polyunsaturate fat is, I believe, questionable or entirely wrong.  I  
do believe that eating more whole fruits and vegetables is good, and I'm  
trying to do so.

Anyway, those are my thoughts for now, and I have to get back to work!  ;-)

I love this quote I just found yesterday:

 The most valuable truths are the ones most people don't believe.
 They're like undervalued stocks. If you start with them, you'll have
 the whole field to yourself. So when you find an idea you know is
 good but most people disagree with, you should not merely ignore
 their objections, but push aggressively in that direction.

 -- Paul Graham, <http://paulgraham.com/notnot.html>

Youth, ain't they grand?

No problem.

Yeah, but I object to the "You're boned anyway" kind of mentality that
this brings on. The key thing is the level of plaque. If they have a
cheap test for this, I would look into it. But I'm not particularly
worried.

Again, how do you assess risk for this? If cholesterol isn't the risk
(50% of the time, people with heart attacks have normal or low
cholesterol, so that's probably not it), then what is? And why obsess
over sat fat if the problem with sat fat is higher cholesterol numbers
(higher HDL numbers, btw)? It just doesn't add.

So, I'm a layperson, but I took more than a few courses about how to
conduct research. Not from a medical perspective, but from a business,
economics, and political economics perspective. The stats are the
same, though the study subjects are different. Lemming move is good
for some. Lemme suggest that the stakes are too high to accept someone
else's opinion blindly.

That's junk science though. I just showed you a change in 7 weeks that
is substantial. I wasn't working out yet in October. Some walking, but
nothing with lifting. It might be imprudent to want to recheck in less
than 3 months (you might not see the full changes or even the extent
of the direction of change), but you can see TriG numbers move in as
little as 3 weeks. And PP doctors Eades suggest 6 weeks as a
reasonable interval. Dr. Atkins suggested 6-8. And my doc was willing
to take it at 7 and 7. So, your doc has one idea, others have other
ideas. Since I can show you a <3 month change from diet and exercise,
your doc's opinion is contrary to my observation. Unless of course
your doct suggests 3 months because he feels it's the safe amount of
time to see a difference, not the minimum. I suspect this is the case.
It is different from what you said though.

I've heard that fiber is really bad for your intestines. I've also
heard that a diet low in fat is associated with gall stones and other
gall bladder dysfunctions. So, you takes your risks whatever you do.
Personally, I'll let you know if I wind up with bloody crap (none yet
in a lifetime of red meat eat) and no colon cancer, yet.

So, the first ten-15 lebs, water, sure. I'll count that. But it's been
more than the first few weeks at this point. Measured by various body
fat calculators, I've lost most of the weight from fat, very little
from lean body mass. Very cool.

Lifting supposedly helps your cholesterol. Running, not so much.

Actually, the 205 is a second goal. I already made my first one, which
was to get to 19% bf and reassess. So, I'm there and I'm moving
forward. But thanks.

Wow. I'm not even gonna talk to the science courses.

Good luck with your program. You're 1/2 way there.