Philip:
> > ... I think the burden of proof lies with those who think LDL above 70
is OK.

Todd:
> Healthier, or just OK?

Either way, I think scientists who claim that above 70 LDL is even just
OK/"normal" (and it may well be) should at least give some explanation as to
why they think it is and some evidence. The problem is, most of them don't
even know that HG's have population averages within the 30-70 range.

Todd:
> It seems to me the question is whether elevated LDL, in itself, plays
> a causative role in any disease process. As you know, correlation doesn't
> imply causation.

Yes, I know, but again, I think that is starting from the wrong beginning
point. Since LDL 30-70 is reportedly the norm for human beings on
species-appropriate diets and for the majority of human infants and
"virtually all wild mammals" (O'Keefe JH Jr, Cordain L, Jones PG, Abuissa H.
Coronary artery disease prognosis and C-reactive protein levels improve in
proportion to percent lowering of low-density lipoprotein. Am J Cardiol.
2006 Jul 1;98(1):135-9.) the starting question is not whether elevated LDL
is a problem or not (and there are studies on both sides of that question;
though the consensus on what is "normal" seems to have fallen from <130 to
<120 and there is a push by some to get that consensus down to <100 after
some recent studies). The first question we should ask would seem to be, why
shouldn't 30-70 be listed as the "norm" or the optimum instead of <120 and
why should LDL be any higher than that biological "norm"? If we consider HG
stats the natural norm, rather than American averages (LDL 130 was
apparently chosen because it is the average for American adults), then we
should investigate when health stats fall outside the HG norm.

If one has an LDL significantly above 70 it is a signal that one probably
has not eaten a biologically appropriate diet at some point in their lives
and/or has been sedentary. As someone suggested, high LDL might not be
damaging in and of itself, but it at least signals that something is out of
sync with the biological norm. Cordain reported that nearly every child
starts out with an LDL within 30-70. Whether a majority of adult SAD eaters
can or should get back down below 70 again through a Paleo diet, I don't
know, but the scientists and doctors should be aware of the true norm. The
burden of proof should lie with those who say that >70 LDL should be seen as
OK rather than requiring proof that >70 LDL is a problem. The downside is
that the result of lowering the norm to 30-70 may be excessive prescribing
of drugs, but at least there would be some logical basis to the numbers.
Whether or not drugs should be used to get levels <70 when diet and exercise
alone are not enough is a separate question I won't delve into here.

Even if we were to assume that LDL above 120-130 is not a health problem,
that would be hard to explain to people who's doctors are telling them
otherwise. So in the real world, if one low carb diet lowers LDL and is just
as good in other respects as another LC diet that spikes LDL in the short
run, it would seem that the former diet would have more people sticking with
it, and that has been my experience. Unfortunately, the only way we have to
measure progress is what the doctors order and the labs give us, and more
patients are receiving LDL results than CRP and other measures--though that
is gradually changing.

Todd:
> Suppose elevated LDL is in itself harmless but can be
> caused by two things, A and B.  Suppose A is a process that
> also causes cardiovascular disease, but B doesn't cause any disease. ...

But we reportedly don't find elevated LDL in a single HG population, so the
question is, why is LDL much higher among moderners than among HG's, and
does it have any health implications? Even if we end up deciding that
100-130 LDL is not a health risk, we should at least be aware that 30-70 is
the "norm" on species-appropriate diets (unless further data adjusts that
"norm" of course). In other words, instead of focusing on "Is it necessary
or helpful to get LDL below the clinical maximum of 100-130," which we
appear to be getting conflicting study results on, we should be asking "Why
does the LDL of so many people on a SAD rise well above the levels of their
infancy, which are also the average levels we find among hunter-gatherers
(30-70), and about what we find among all primates (40-80)?"

Todd:
> At the time of the test, I had been on Neanderthin for 12 weeks or so, 
> and had regained a bit of weight. ...

Any idea why Neanderthin appears to have caused your LDL to go up and remain
high after 12 weeks, whereas the LDL of most of the LC subjects in the
studies you cited returned to baseline after 6-8 weeks? Do you think it was
due to consuming more than 10% carbs or to unusual sensitivity to SFA's or
do you think you could be an outlier with regards to LDL, etc.? Based on the
study, I could say that the people I know who saw significant increases in
their LDL on a Neanderthin-type diet probably would have seen those levels
drop again within 6-8 weeks if they had stuck with it, but then I'm
confronted with your case in which contradicts that. 

Philip:
> > What I mean is, since you said that few people can lose dramatic 
> > amounts of weight on a Paleo diet while following the "eat until 
> > you're full" rule, then few Westerners are going to experience 
> > dramatic weight loss and blood sugar improvements without doing IF 
> > or caloric restriction, right?

Todd:
> I have no idea whether it's few or many who fall into this category, 
> but it's clear that at least some do.

Sure, I agree with that. Some Paleo dieters will not lose weight while
following a "eat until you're full" approach, but in my experience with
about 15 other people (in addition to myself), the majority claimed they
lost significant weight while following this approach (and with some it was
quite obvious), and Cordain and Audette seem to believe that this will hold
for the general population, though there's no statistically significant data
on this. 

Philip:
> It seems to me that the flesh of a sick animal on drugs would not be
> as healthy as the flesh of a healthy animal. [I noted that wild and 
> pasture-fed meats reportedly offer other benefits, such as more omega 
> 3 fats.]

Todd:
> Inland hominids without a lot of access to cold-water marine fats
> would have gotten their omega 3 fats from brains, I think. ... 

Indeed, Cordain says that by eating the whole carcass (other than hide,
hooves and bones) they got more overall fat from the brains, marrow and
muscle than from the kidneys and adipose tissue, which is one of the
anti-saturated fat arguments.

> The meat of land animals just isn't a good source [of omega 3 fats].

OK, I have seen that reported before and maybe I shouldn't have used that
specific example, but what about my broader point? We agree that feeding
humans biologically inappropriate foods makes them less healthy and can even
make them sick (with illnesses like diabetes and arthritis), right? This
also seems to be the case for animals, right? Plus there are clearly
differences between wild and ancient breeds of animals vs. conventional
livestock. Isn't it at least possible that the changes humans have made in
the genetics, diets and lifestyle of the animals we eat has made them less
healthy to eat? 

> In the U.S., cattle (for beef) are weaned at six months, pastured for 
> six to eight months, and then fattened in feedlots for three to four 
> months.  Thus, they are slaughtered at between 16-18 months, 
> typically.
> The antiobiotics are used in subtherapeutic doses as a kind of 
> prophylaxis, so that an infection that one animal might 
> contract doesn't wipe out the lot, and also because they promote
> fattening.  It's not because the cattle are generally sick.

Yes, I know the process. I live in Florida where the cattle are pasture fed
before they're sent to Texas to be fattened in feedlots. When they're
pasture fed they usually don't need the antibiotics. A big part of the
problem with the feedlots is the close confinement, of course, but I have
seen claims that the biologically inappropriate food makes them (and humans)
more prone to infection and bloating as well. When I first saw Florida beef
cattle grazing in a pasture I was concerned they might be starving because
they were so lean. I later learned that that is what cattle look like when
they are allowed to graze on open pasture before they have been fattened
(whether on grass, hay, sileage, corn/soy feed, molasses, etc.) and that the
hefty cattle and cows I am used to seeing have been fattened on feed and
other junk. It not only takes longer to fatten cattle on grass, hay and/or
sileage than on feed, they apparently also don't get as fat on grass and hay
as they do on feed. 

Here are two sources, the second of which admittedly has a profit motive,
that claim that grass-fattened animals are leaner than grain-fattened:

Splendor From the Grass

By Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, PhD
http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/splendor.html
<<If there is a danger in the move towards grass feeding, it is the danger
of eating meat too lean. Grass-fed beef cattle can be fattened by leaving
cattle longer in the field, or by supplementing their diets with grain in
the final weeks before slaughter.>>

Grass-fed Animal Products
http://www.consciouschoice.com/2001/cc1411/grassfed1411.html
<<grass-fed animals are often smaller and weigh less than grain-fattened
animals>>

I used imprecise language when I said that farmed livestock are "sick"--the
antibiotics are to prevent the cattle from getting bacterial infections, not
treat existing ones. However, antibiotics are generally unnecessary when the
cattle are pasture fed. It's like the SAD dieters who say "I'm in perfect
health, I just use this inhaler to prevent asthma attacks, and ...." Those
cattle may not be acknowledged as unhealthy/sickly by those who run the
Texas feedlots, but I'll bet the Florida pasture farmers would recognize a
health decline in those animals after they've been in a feedlot for a few
months.

Todd:
> What's most problematic about
> this practice is that it breeds antibiotic-resistant microorganisms.

Yes, and that's also happening with humans--lots of antibiotics prescribed
to fight chronic bacterial infections like chronic bronchitis, sinusitis or
ear infections; or to prevent infections like pneumonia in susceptible
people.