Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 7 Sep 1998 03:26:09 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Todd Moody wrote:
> Recently-studied hunter-gatherers have serum total
> cholesterol levels averaging 125 mg/dl (Eaton, 1988), a
> value within the range for free-living non-human primates
> (Eaton, 1992). Human societies with similar average
> serum total cholesterol levels have vanishingly low
> prevalences of CHD. Americans and other affluent
> Westerners, conversely, have average total serum
> cholesterol values exceeding 200 mg/dl - well outside the
> "natural" primate range - and, for these populations, CHD
> is the single leading cause of mortality.
>
> Some of these recently studied HGs would be on a diet at or near
> the all-meat end of the spectrum. But Stefansson's cholesterol
> was over 200, and Andersen's was about 400 while on that diet.
Do we have any idea what the standard deviation is for the distribution
of modern-HG cholesterol levels? Isn't is possible that those
modern-HGs at the all-meat end of the spectrum have cholesterol levels
closer to those of Stefansson than those of the mean (125)?
> Why didn't their blood lipids return to the HG/primate norm, if
> an all-meat diet is ideal for all HGs and primates? Two possible
> explanations are possible: Either the Stefansson/Andersen diet
> was significantly different from the typical HG/primate diet,
> causing the difference in cholesterol, or Stefansson and Andersen
> were themselves sufficiently different from the typical HG and
> primate to experience this different outcome. Or both, of
> course.
Is diet the only thing which affects cholesterol levels? If not,
your dichotomy is false. When you refer to diet in this paragraph,
I infer that you're speaking only of composition, and perhaps
quantity. But perhaps frequency and time between feedings are
also relevant to cholesterol levels.
|
|
|