Todd Moody wrote:
> This refutes the theory that total
> cholesterol is just a function of how much fat you eat.
<snip>
> This suggests that Andersen's diet was more
> hypercaloric than Stefansson's.  Perhaps it is this, in the
> presence of large amounts of dietary fat, that explains the
> difference in serum cholesterol.
What I meant by 'large amounts of dietary fat' is relative
large amounts (relative to body size), which is what I think
you are saying above. I didn't mean to say that given two people
the one who eats more fat will have higher cholesterol. For any
given person, as you increase the amount of fat (keeping carbs
constant) the total cholesterol may go up, simply because it's
needed for fat transport. (I am saying keeping carbs constant
because the corresponding reduction in carbs might offset the
change in cholesterol). Seeing how some on low carb diets can
overeat without gaining weight it would not be surprising to
find out that their total fat intake is much higher than maintenance.

> The fact is that nobody yet fully understands the link, if any,
> between cholesterol and health.  It is therefore premature to
> dismiss it.
I should have been clearer about this. It seems that despite
years of research a definitive link has NOT been established.
There still may very well be a relationship, but if it's not
even clear to us that there is a link (and if yes, what kind
of a link) between them why do we keep worrying about elevated
levels of total cholesterol? Is there any other chemical normally
present in the body with no definite clear link to desease that
we worry so much over (especially when its levels only go up
within a factor of two?)

Ilya