Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 11 Sep 1998 20:39:33 -0400 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
James Crocker wrote:
>There were eight
>participants, 4 female, 4 male. Compared to pre-closure of the facility
their average
>cholesterol went from 191 to 119. Their blood pressure went from an
average of 109/77 to 76/57.
>Body weight from 148 to 126. Blood sugar 92 to 70. WBC 6,600 to 4,800.
This was just in the
>first six months.
>
>From talking to several doctors, and all the research I have done on my
own, these biomarkers
>are considered excellent for good health.
I'm not an expert, but some of those stats look undesirable to me. For
example, I consider a fasting blood sugar of 70 mg% to be somewhat low (the
lab where I took the glucose tolerance test considered a fasting level < 68
mg% abnormal). Similarly, the blood pressure and WBC measurements look low
to me (one lab considers a WBC < 4500 abnormal -- my WBC is exactly 4500).
As far as I know, there is no consensus on the ideal cholesterol level; some
people would consider 119 dangerously low, yet Eaton reported an average of
125 among modern hunter-gatherers. I can't interpret the change in weight
without knowing the average height of the participants.
Thank you for the summary, James. Does anyone more knowledgeable than I
have any opinions about the study results?
Cheers,
-- Aaron Wieland
|
|
|