>>This abstract includes the interesting conclusion that only 25% of coronary
>heart disease is explained by the known risk factors, and may be of interest
>to those following the cholesterol line. I would have thought that even more
>heart disease was explained by other risk factors, but there ya go.
>Ben Balzer

>The French paradox relates to the paradoxical association of a diet high in
>saturated fat and cholesterol with low coronary heart disease mortality and
>is contrary to the 'lipid hypothesis'. France and other regions with low
>heart disease mortality have a high consumption of fruit and vegetables.
bla, bla, bla....Even mild to moderate elevation in plasma homocysteine
level
is a strong risk factor for arteriosclerosis of the coronary, cerebral,
and peripheral arteries. This should explain not only the French paradox
but also why known risk factors may explain as little as
>25% of the risk for coronary heart disease.

Thank you Ben!  Btw: Many people who have "high" cholesterol levels
don't have heart attackes.  Likewise, many people who have heart
attacks actually have cholesterol levels in the so-called "normal"
range.  My conclusion: The Western tests can't tell you as much
if you are at risk for a heart attack (or IMHO most other
diseases).  But, one can eliminate a huge number of risk factors
by making certain dietary and lifestyle changes/committments.

Btw:  Red meats, esp. liver, are great sources of the B-vitamins which are
believed
to help lower homocysteine  levels (B-3, B-6, B-12). Anyone for pâté foie
gras?

Btw:  I mentioned naturopathic, chiropractice, and other alternative
therapies not because I think they are the be-all and end-all, but merely to
state that those are the only practitioners I've gone to since I was in
college (dentists/eye doctors excluded) when I had "problems" and before I
got my health on a constant upswing.

Rachel
>
>------------------------------