Hello Jeff,

>As you know, it would be unwise for him or anyone to answer that
>question without a much further understanding of his total diet and
>nutritional intake along with a complete evaluation.   Many things
>contribute to ones cholesterol levels (both high and low), and
>cholesterol is only one factor in disease risk, and by itself may not be
>that important as once thought.  With everything else that was going on
>at the time, the reading may also be considered "suspect".
>
Thanks for putting things in their broader perspective.

>Also, - remember that the most hypercholesterimic factor we know of today is
>trans fatty acids (regardless of the source) which are a result of
>heating fats.  So, cooked fats seem to be the worst of all.

Do you know of any differences in the impact of cooked animal fats versus
cooked vegetable fats?
>
>- You are asking to compare one individual case study with several
>long-term large, multi generational population studies. (I doubt you or
>anyone [including the tobbacco industry] would consider George Burn's
>long life a testimony for smoking cigars) :)

Okay, you got me on that one!
>
>- more important then what Zephyr may have eaten on 3 occassions each
>week, is what he was consuming the rest of the week.

Do you mean that since he was *not* eating RAFs the rest of the week, he
was okay cholesterol-wise?
>
>I understand your experience has been very traumatic and intense to say
>the least and raises lots of questions and concerns.
>
>Personally, I have many serious concerns with the instincto's and RAF
>theories both philosophically, morally, ethically, physiologically, and
>anything else I can think of, but haven;t addressed them to the list,
>and maybe one day will.  I have been aware of them and followed them
>somewhat for sevral years.  My brother followed it  for awhile and I
>wouldn;t consider his experinece a success. Several of the ideas are
>interesting and we all could benefit greatly by applying some of them.
>In the meantime, I saw that you yourself came to question several of the
>theories during your experinece and since.

>And philosphically, the ongoing evolution and "rules" that seem to
>develop along with it, almost seem to fly in the face of its own theory,
>and just seem to complicate the whole supposedly natural and simple
>original theory.  Which is a amjor part of the original theory.

EXACTLY!!!

>But that is not only true for the Instincto's but also for the ongoing
>issues that always seem to prevail amongst the Natural Hygienists,
>Fruitarian's, Raw fooders, Sproutarians, etc., etc., .
>
>Excuse me, but I thought this was suppossed to be the natural and
>simple, softer and easier way!
>
I know, I know, I know.  That's why I don't want to be called an anything
anymore.

>Anyway, Hope all goes well, and best wishes to you too.

Thanks!

All the best,
Deborah