Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 7 Sep 1998 08:58:45 -0400 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Sep 1998, T. Martin wrote:
> 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)?
I believe the mean for the Samburu (the meat-and-milk people) is
150. The Tutsi (another all-meat group) are lower than that.
> 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.
Stress and exercise levels have an effect, but the effect is
small, not nearly enough to account for the difference.
Quantity is a factor. I have somewhere in my notes a study to
the effect that a major cut in calories causes an immediate and
significant drop in cholesterol. Frequency could be an issue. I
recall that Sears says that if more than 35g of protein are eaten
at a single meal, there is a disproportionate insulin response
because that is the maximum amount of protein that can be
utilized at one time. The rest must be stored as fat. That's
what Sears says, but I have never been able to find a reference
for that factoid.
It could potentially be highly relevant though, couldn't it? 35g
is only about 5 ounces of lean beef. Maybe I'll ask again at the
website.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|