Hilary McClure wrote:

>Todd Moody wrote:
>
>
>>This is correct, and a Nobel prize was awared for this discovery some
>>years back.
>>
>>The unresolved issue, however, is whether an increase in LDL is, in
>>itself, cause for concern.  Cordain and the vast majority of scientists
>>think it is...
>>
>>
>
>No, even Cordain admits that this is unknown. He said so on this list.
>He admits to the strong possiblility that a high SFA low carb diet would
>increase LDL while at the same time decreasing small dense LDL and
>thereby possibly decreasing atherosclerosis. To me this makes his
>dietary plan somewhat of a house of cards.
>
>

Well, I have to agree that pretty much the entire anti-SFA argument
hangs in the balance on this one issue.  To my knowledge, it has not yet
been demonstrated that elevated LDL is a risk for anything if it does
not have the "beta" pattern of predominantly small-dense particles.  I
also don't know exactly how strong the correlation between TGL and
small-dense LDL is.  I have read that it is "strong" but that's not very
precise.  I've heard about other "strong" correlations that turned out
to be not so strong either.

I think Cordain's position is that while he is open to the possibility
that particle size is all that matters about LDL, until this theory has
more support he accepts the party line that LDL should be on the low side.

The thing that I find strange is that more than one study has shown that
supposedly "heart-healty" MUFA increases Lp(a) substantially, and Lp(a)
is known to be an independent risk factor for heart disease.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]