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