On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Kaiden Fox wrote:
> >Have you forgotten about Karsten Andersen? Another genetic
> >mishap, possibly?
>
> Todd is a good aquantance of mine, and a regular poster on the list. I
> want to make clear to anyone who may not know of our connection that Todd is
> not some "mutant freak," but rather a caring, friendly individual who has
> been an inspiration to all of us on this list.
That doesn't mean I'm not a mutant, but the main point is that we
don't know who will respond well and who won't. And the really
main point is that a diet high in saturated fat is very likely
*not* much like a paleolithic diet in this respect. It may be
tolerated well by many people anyway, but it shouldn't even be
that surprising if many people don't tolerate it well.
> Some people do not react well to a high-fat diet - that seems to have
> been proven. However, I would consider it worth the risk. If it turns out
> that it's ruining your body, there are other approaches. Me, I perfer to
> eat fat.
I also consider it worth the risk to try it, but it should be
done with eyes open, not with the attitude that "this can't hurt
me." Furthermore, the "other approaches" can still be within the
bounds of "paleomimetic" diets.
I should mention that there is still confusion about the link
between LDL cholesterol and health. Mary Enig and Sally Fallon
insist that there is no such link, but there appears to be a fair
amount of evidence that they are wrong. The ratio of
trigylcierides to HDL is believed by some to be more important.
In this case, the Neanderthin diet helped me somewhat by lowering
my TRI, but did little to raise HDL. Resistance of HDL to change
is one of the signs of familial/genetic hypercholesterolemia. It
has been suggested that the TRI/HDL ratio should be no more than
1.0. My HDL is about 35, and it would be pretty rare to have TRI
levels that low, I think.
It is quite possible that people like myself are *never* going to
have blood lipids that look good, no matter what we eat.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
|
