Philip wrote:

> 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.
Yes, I think that makes sense.  In fact, if I had to guess I'd say that 
carb intake and energy balance have more to do with it than SFA intake.  
As I recall, HG diets are not generally  high in calories, in relation 
to their energy expenditure.  And that makes sense, since in the HG life 
the economy of eating is more directly connected with the daily work of 
getting food.  For example, I believe the Masai diet was, on average, 
about 1400 calories/day (unless I'm misremembering).

More conjecture, if that's okay.... As I see it, the relation between 
calories in and calories out is non-linear, and that's what a calorie is 
not "just a calorie."  There is, I believe, a caloric "window" for each 
of us, within which we neither gain nor lose weight.  Depending on 
whether we are at the high or low end of that window, and depending on 
what we eat, our bodies go into different states in response to food.  
My guess is that sustained eating at the high end, over the long haul, 
pushes us into chronic inflammatory states.  If at the same time we are 
eating a lot of carbs, especially high-glycemic processed ones, then the 
"window" itself is lowered and the inflammatory effect is increased.

The people who practice CR do get those HG levels of LDL.  Mattson's 
work on IF, though not yet tested very well in humans (except for 
Ramadan studies, mainly) suggests that IF may do the same.  I'm coming 
round to the idea that the amount of food eaten, and the frequency of 
eating, may be as important as things like macronutrient and fatty acid 
ratios.

>  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.
Yes, I agree with that.  Looking at centenarian studies, we find very 
little in common, in terms of diet, exercise, total cholesterol and 
LDL.  Centenarians tend to have low FBG, low TG, (especially HDL/TG 
ratio) and low insulin levels (Source: I believe it was Sears's 
anti-aging book).  I'm betting that HGs do too.

> 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?
And if the evidence that SFA is the key player is equivocal at best, 
what's the next best guess?  Probably some function of carbs and total 
energy.

>> 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.?
My guess, at the moment, is that as I came off the rigors of caloric 
restriction on the Zone, I ate *very* heartily on Neanderthin for a 
while, which would also explain the weight gain.  I suspect that caused 
the LDL spike.

I don't know if you've ever been fat, or had the experience of caloric 
restriction.  It is psychologically not easy, because even though simple 
"hunger" goes away, you always have the feeling of eating less than 
you'd like--often considerably less.  Do that for a few months (or 
years) and then have someone tell you "Hey you can chow down all you 
want as long as you stick to *these foods*, and not only won't you gain 
weight, you'll lose some!"  Chances are that as you relax that caloric 
restriction you will want to eat a *lot*.  This is different from 
starting Neanderthin from a "normal" SAD point.  I don't remember 
exactly how much I was eating during that time, but I know it was 
substantially more than what I had been eating on the Zone.

> 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? 
>   
Sure it's possible.  But I personally doubt that the fat content of the 
meat has much to do with it.  Since most of us eat muscle meats and 
nothing else, it's beyond doubt that we are *not* getting things we 
need, such as vitamins A and D and omega 3 fats.  Let me put it this 
way:  If you took two groups of HGs with the same diet and only varied 
one thing, i.e., one group gets feedlot meat and the other gets 
free-range, I doubt you'd see a significant difference in their health.  
They'd still use the entire carcass, the organs, brains, marrow, etc.  
They'd eat the same amounts, at the same intervals.  My guess--and it's 
no more than that--is that all these other factors would drown out the 
contribution, if any, of the SFAs in the muscle meats.


> Here are two sources, the second of which admittedly has a profit motive,
> that claim that grass-fattened animals are leaner than grain-fattened:
>   
As far as I'm concerned, this is not in doubt.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]