Todd Moody wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Aaron D. Wieland wrote:
>
> > 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.
snipped...
> In short, against the background of a standard American diet and
> lifestyle, a very low cholesterol reading *might* be an
> indication that something is wrong.  Against the background of a
> hunter-gatherer diet and lifestyle or Biosphere, it might mean
> that something is right.

I keep wondering if total cholesterol figures are nearly meaningless as far as
good health is concerned. Various ratios, yes, blood triglycerides, yes, but
total cholesterol?  Whouldn't it be more reflective of the need to transport
fat around the body? If you eat a lot of fat (or burn a lot of it) then your
total cholesterol goes up, but if that's the case, who cares? Most of the studies,
if carefully scrutinized, do not show much correlation between total cholesterol
and cardiovascular desease, cancer, etc. So why do we keep brining it up?

just wondering, Ilya