On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, John C. Pavao wrote:

> I don't know much about human evolution and genotypes.  If you can explain
> that to me without putting everyone to sleep (seems like it has that
> potential <g>), I'd be much obliged.

As long as they're not operating heavy machinery, I guess it'll
be okay.

The point is simply that we don't know how much of our problems
are caused by dietary abuses and how much are caused by other
inherited factors.  It is abundantly clear that you can take two
people, brothers for example, and raise them on the same feed and
both will not necessarily become obese, or have elevated
cholesterol, or whatever.  In fact, we don't know what causes
obesity or hypercholesterolemia.  There are lots of clues, but no
smoking gun.

> When you refer to "ill effects" are you talking specifically about elevated
> blood cholesterol levels?  Are you of the school that high blood
> cholesterol is a cause or an effect of heart disease?

I believe it is *one of* the causes, but by no means the only
one.

> (Personally, I am
> more and more convinced that it's a response to damage done by free
> radicals.  It's a subject I really want to read more about but never get
> around to.)

Then you would expect large-scale use of antioxidants to help; in
my case at least they did not.  It's quite possible that the
elevated cholesterol is indeed a response to free radical damage,
but a response that unfortunately causes other damage.

> Did you try switching to naturally-fed meats (i.e.,
> free-range, etc.)?

Not entirely.  I tried to use plenty of these meats, but did not
use them exclusively.

> How long of a time period did you wait before testing
> your cholesterol before getting the high numbers?  Did you do multiple
> tests to rule out a botched or unrepresentative test?

I got the first set of high numbers about 3 months after starting
NeanderThin.  Since then I have had two more lab tests and
several home tests.  With one exception, all the test results
have been consistent with each other.  Initial total cholesterol
was 302, with only 35 HDL.  My first strategy, for about two
months, was to use antioxidants, garlic, etc.  This just nudged
it down to 296.  Then I tried Troy Gilchrist's suggestion of
doing a ketogenic version of NeanderThin, eating just meat and
salad greens.  After three weeks of this, it was up to 320.  HDL
remained unchanged throughout this.

I have been from the start very diligent about avoiding
trans-fats.

> Anyway, here's my beef with using fiber to remove cholesterol from the
> body:  unless I grossly misunderstand the mechanism, it's treating the
> symptom rather than the problem.

Not necessarily.  There are *several* problems.  One might be, as
you say, free radical damage.  The second is accumulation of
oxidized cholesterol.  I don't offhand know what I can do about
the free radical damage, beyond what I am already doing.  But the
LDL cholesterol is still there in abundance.  I don't know it's
oxidative status, but I still use antioxidants.  I don't know
*why* it's accumulating, but it strikes me as reasonable to want
to reduce it, given that *if* it is oxidized and *if* it adheres
to artery linings it causes trouble.

> But this is why I don't think it necessarily makes sense to worry
> about cholesterol levels as anything other than an indicator of other
> trouble.  The cholesterol only becomes a problem because the other problem
> is wildly out of control.

It could be that the problems caused by cholesterol are akin to
the damage caused by water when there is a house fire.  There
would be no water damage if there hadn't been a fire in the first
place, but water damage is still something other than, and in
addition to, fire damage.  I agree with you that it is important
to put the fire out.  But since I don't know just where the fire
is, I must also think about contolling the water damage.

And once again, the case of Karsten Andersen is instructive.
Although his cholesterol skyrocketed on the all-meat diet, it
went back to normal when he stopped the diet.  Where was the
fire?

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]

>
> John Pavao
>
> ----------
> But there are also examples of people eating a meat diet *with*
> ill effects, such as my own case and that of Karsten Andersen.
> What we don't know is whether those ill effects could be avoided
> by the use of fiber.  And don't forget that according to the
> Paleolithic Prescription, another set of opinions about
> paleolithic eating, the paleolithic level of dietary fiber was
> extremely high by today's standards.  For us, it would be almost
> impossible to get to that level without supplementation.
>
> <snip my babble>
>
> Or, alternatively, you have inherited a recent genotype that
> simply didn't exist in paleolithic times, so that all bets are
> off.  Possibly the same is true for me with my cholesterol
> problem.
>
> Todd Moody
> [log in to unmask]
>

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]