When I first started strict paleo, it was spring of 1997, I 
believe--when this list was first started.  I had already lost quite a 
bit of weight on the Zone diet.  I switched to paleo after reading 
Neanderthin (previous edition), and began to eat much more liberal 
amounts of SFA, and considerably less carbs.  I had blood work done in 
June, and was expecting low cholesterol.  I was dismayed at my results, 
which I posted in this message: 
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?A2=ind9706&L=PALEOFOOD&P=R24992&I=-3

Between then and now, I've tried many "tweaks" of paleo, and non-paleo 
lowcarb, and at various times (such as recently!) fallen off the wagon 
altogether.

What I'm doing now is LCIF (lowcarb intermittent fasting), i.e., I'm 
eating one large meal a day, consisting of plenty of fatty meat, and a 
vegetable.  I have a yogurt or a piece of fruit an hour or so later.  
Thus, I'm fasting for 22 out of every 24 hours.  I'm losing weight (5 
lbs. since a week ago today).  Even though it *feels* like a humongous 
meal--which is psychologically satisfying and makes compliance easier 
for me--I'm clearly still running a caloric deficit.  I posted my recent 
lab results, and I expect I'll get another test in a month or two.   My 
expectation is that my TG will drop to under 100, and my HDL will either 
stay at 55 or go up a tiny bit.  I won't be surprised if my LDL goes up, 
but then again the fasting effect may push it down.  Hard to predict.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]


>> ... I noticed no measurable different between [Paleo] and a
>> comparable lowcarb plan.
>>
>> Todd
>>     
>
> Interesting. I noticed that the people I know who had less than dramatic
> positive results and an increase in LDL on a Paleo-type diet tended to be
> eating a lot of saturated fats (like bacon or sausage and eggs for
> breakfast). In one case a couple was eating a NeanderThin diet high in
> saturated fat. The wife's sleep quality improved dramatically after the
> first day, but her LDL shot up, whereas the husband's LDL didn't go up at
> all. So I guessed that some people may be better able to handle SFA's than
> others and I noticed you've made the same hypothesis. 
>
> My best guess as to why you're blood sugar didn't fall would have been
> saturated fats, but I assume by your posts that you keep your SFA's between
> the Hunter-Gatherer data range of 10-15%, correct?
>
> Thanks for your time. I know you are a busy man.
> Philip
>
>