Here's another P.S. on the below. Some of the testing I had was in
connection with testing for glucose response, and I was eating honey or
dates. Perhaps the higher cholesterol averages were related to increased
sugar and not fat.


Elnora Van Winkle wrote:

> >
> > Here are some values for CHOL/HDL to compare. I've been all raw since
> > Jan 95. Total CHOL range 132-219. A series of values for CHOL/HDL since
> > Dec 95 were 2.9, in 96 1.7, 2.1, 1.9, 2.1, in 97 2.4, 2.9, 2.2, 2.5,
> > 3.1, in 98 2.2, 2.4, 3.0, 3.0, 2.7
> >
> > 95  2.9 1 value only
> > 96  2.0 avg
> > 97  2.6 avg
> > 98  2.7 avg
> >
> > In 96 I ate mostly raw fatty fish and chicken
> > In 97 I began eating raw beef also.
> >
>
> P.S. Re: Melisa's 216 value. Here are some total cholesterol values I
> had  between '95 and '98
>
> 95' 178, '96 132, 167, 142, 188, '97 172, 202, 136, 209, 148, '98 219,
> 210, 175, 194, 178
>
> '95 178 1 value only
> '96 157  avg
> '97 173  avg
> '98 195  avg
>
> My 219 value in '98 doesn't concern me. I see the average did increase
> slightly as I began to eat more raw beef, including more marrow and some
> lamb fat compared to the previous fatty fish. If you believe the "values
> are higher because old bad fats are being flushed out", maybe that
> accounts for the higher values? Who knows. the 188 value in '96 was the
> day after eating 1 doz egg yolks. the 219 value in '98 was 1and 1/2 hr
> after eating 4 TBS honey on an empty stomach.
>
> My triglycerides:
>
> '95 134 1 value
> '96  71 avg of 3
> '97  41 avg of 2 values
> '98  69 avg of 2 values
>
> Good values, I'd say. Lately I've increased eating some raw lamb fat
> (not soft) and fatty beef, and noticed some indigestion. It doesn't
> taste as delicious as marrow, and I'm trying to get Coleman to ship some
> marrow into NYC.
>
> My best, Ellie