On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Susan Carmack wrote:

> I enjoyed reading your post. I was wondering..
> How does high cholesterol affect your day?

Not at all, in any discernible way.

> If you didn't know about cholesterol, would you be concerned about it?
> Do you have more energy and less disease eating the way you do now?

If I didn't know about cholesterol, how could I be concerned
about it?  I don't think I understand the question.  As a general
thing, yes, I think I have more energy and health than I did on
SAD.  As I mentioned in another message, I do not notice any
improvements as compared with the Zone, however, even though I
ate many non-paleo foods.

To put it simply, I cannot from my own experience confirm that a
paleodiet is "better" than a restricted carb diet.  In some ways,
it can be worse.  After a few weeks of ketosis, for example, I
begin to do rather poorly.  Four weeks is the most I've been able
to tolerate.  But of course a paleodiet doesn't have to be
ketogenic.

> >I think you are too quick to conclude that the Paleodiet pages
> >present the Last Word on such matters.
>
> I think so too. However, I know if I ate unadulterated wild meat raw I
> would be better off than  eating what I ate yesterday which was farm fresh
> eggs (ok), freshly picked blackberries (ok),
> NZ lamb pemmican with coconut oil (wondering what the lamb ate; feel
> queezy; have restless leg, bloating), salmon (wondering what the mercury
> level was) fruit (what pesticides were used?) bananas (have 'they' spiked
> them with cholera vaccine yet?)....

Well, if you have identified foods that make you sick, it makes
sense to avoid them.  I certainly make every effort to do that,
but the truth is that there are very few foods that make me feel
bad in any very clearly detectable way.

> >Loren Cordain, for example,
> >apparently accepts the mainstream idea that saturated fats and
> >serum cholesterol are problematic.
>
> A lot of scientists don't....

Sure.  It remains controversial, even among scientists with
undisputed credentials and integrity -- including scientists,
such as Cordain and Eaton who are sympathetic to the paleodiet
concept.

> >not persuaded that elevated LDL cholesterol is
> >necessary a cause of any health problem, but I do think it is a
> >marker for some metabolic imbalance or other.
>
> In Lynne McTaggart's book, What Doctors Don't Tell You, she sites numerous
> studies that indicate that cholesterol plays no part in heart attack or
> disease. The chapter is called Crazy About Cholesterol - Medicine's Red
> Herring.

Yes, I've read it.  But her comments, based largely on Mary
Enig's work, do not address the question of whether elevated LDL
is a *marker* for a metabolic imbalance.

> She also recommends that we not believe test results. They are wrong at
> least 50% of the time.

I have had my cholesterol tested many times, and the results are
quite consistent.  Even the home test kit, Cholestrak, gives
readings that are consistent with lab results.  This consistency
makes it more likely that the results are accurate.

> >as I recall.  A reading of
> >200 is considered "normal" in developed countries,
>
> who decided that?

Nobody *decided* it.  "Normal" does not imply any value judgment.
It simply represents the median reading of a large population.

> I haven't either but I feel better, have more energy and don't get
> sick-(except when I eat brains.. or meat that has been fed glutenous grains).
> How much weight are you trying to lose?
> 'They' say it isn't good to lose too fast.
>
> >  My body fat is 19%.
>
> What does that mean?

It means that of the 225 lbs. that I now weigh, about 43 are fat.
It means that my LBM is about 182.  I'd like to get my body fat
to under 15%, which means I probably should weigh about 213, if I
don't lose any muscle in the process (unlikely).

> >but now I'm considering whether it
> >might be eating too much protein at a time, since I do enjoy
> >large steaks and the like.
>
> Have you considered that the grain fed meat could be stalling your weight loss?

I doubt this.  For one thing, I lost weight readily on the Zone,
despite eating moderate amounts of grains in the process.  If
eating the grains myself didn't stall weight loss, I doubt that
the trace amounts of grains in meat would do so.

> I ask this because I have always had a weight problem and I discovered that
> it was due to gluten intolerance. Once I got the gluten out, I lost weight.

I don't seem to have this intolerance, in any noticeable way.

> Now that I am eating meat again, not only am I having more 'gluten
> mistakes' than when I was a vegetarian, but my weight is going up too! It
> is hard to believe that there is more gluten evident in meat than in
> vegetarian cuisine. It only takes one molecule of gluten to totally wreck
> one's day and one's metabolism.

This simply doesn't apply to me.  I have to wonder whether it is
in fact gluten in meat that is causing the problem.  For one
thing, I believe cattle are generally fattened on corn, which is
gluten-free.  In addition, I don't think gluten represents a
challenge for a *cow's* disgestive system, since seeds are
seasonally part of the grass that the cow naturally eats.  I
would expect that the cow is able to disgest the stuff
completely.

> >So I shall try the experiment and see
> >how it turns out.
>
> I am interested in what you are eating and intend to eat in your experiment
> and how it goes.

I'm just going to try regulating my protein intake a bit more
carefully: smaller portions of meat, more vegetables, etc.  The
result will be more "paleozone" but I don't plan to track ratios
of protein to carb.  No more 10 or 12 ounce steaks for a while.
I'm keeping a food log to stay honest with it.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]