PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 27 Oct 2000 21:08:44 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (66 lines)
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Cave Chick wrote:

> I just had had my yearly physical and am concerned about my bloodwork:
>
> Total Cholesteral:  247 (this rose 41 points!)
>
> HDL:  91 (this dropped 2 points)
>
> LDL: 149 (this rose 49 points!)
>
> Triglycerides: 36 (this dropped 30 points)
>
> I am really concerned about the bad cholesteral going so much higher.

I'm going to assume that you've visited
http://home2.swipnet.se/~w-25775/index.htm
and read everything there at least twice.  If you haven't, then
do so.  It's important to counterbalance the propaganda that you,
and all of us, have been bombarded with for decades.

I'm saying this as a person who would like to have the lipid
numbers that you have just given us.

The thing is, you have to decide what to believe about
cholesterol.  There is a staggering amount of confusing and
conflicting information on the subject.  Loren Cordain, for
example, basically agrees with the mainstream ideas concerning
HDL and LDL and would probably find cause for concern in your
rise in LDL (and the slight drop in HDL, I suppose).  Ray Audette
and Troy Gilchrist also do not challenge the thesis that
cholesterol is an important risk factor for heart disease.  The
Eades, on the other hand (along with Atkins) think that the
TG:HDL ratio is what is most important, in which case you are in
very good shape indeed.  Your TG:HDL ratio is about .4, which is
the lowest I've ever heard of.  But many, many scientists and
physicians do not accept the primacy of the TG:HDL ratio.

A diet that is high in saturated fats -- especially palmitic and
myristic acid -- will tend to raise LDL cholesterol in many (but
not all) people.  Although low-carb enthusiasts may tell you that
by controlling insulin, LDL cholesterol will be lowered, the
truth is that this may not happen.  Insulin isn't the only player
in the game.  The saturated fats that I mentioned have the effect
of downregulating LDL receptors, resulting in higher circulating
LDL levels.  So, while *some* people can get a reduction in LDL
by carb restriction, it simply doesn't work for all people, for
reasons that I don't think anybody really understands yet.

> I've
> been eating much more oily fish -- I thought this was supposed to help.

The studies of the effects of fish oil on LDL have given very
mixed results.

> Any thoughts???  Also, any paleos know of any paleo friendly doctors in the
> NYC area?  My doctor is insisting I see his nutritionist to get on a "high
> carb low fat regime) to bring my cholesteral down.  There is no way I will
> do this but would appreciate any thoughts you all might have.

If you decide that you really want to reduce the LDL, you'll
probably have to reduce your saturated fat intake.  That doesn't
mean that you have to go on a high-carb diet, however.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2