I realize I'm a newbie here, but I had one doctor tell me that often when
you are losing weight you get a higher cholesterol level because that
stuff is all floating around in your blood stream before it gets cleaned
out. It was something about the liver not being able to handle it all.
So, this is maybe another explanation. I always play the skeptic and I
have alot of trouble believing most things I read. For instance,
cholesterol was going to be one of the big questions I had after reading
this book...and heart disease. Being high-carb warped I really felt
strange at dinner yesterday eating egg salad on lettuce.
The big *danger* I can see regarding this way of life...is that if a
person were to decide they wanted to start eating some grains again they
may end up gaining an awful lot of weight. Though I suppose there's that
danger with the WW plan I've been on. I'm having alot of trouble sticking
with it now that I've lost most of my weight. Then again I've been lax
about exercising and I've been eating a little bit more than I had when
losing.
Also, I've managed to lose that 37 pounds and keep it off for 6 months...
not a very long time. So there's that innate fear that making such a
big change in my eating habits may just cause me to put on 100 lbs.
Though I'm hoping that I will have brains enough to notice if I'm up
5 lbs ... or even 2 lbs I had better do something about it. :)
Just some of my goofy hang-ups. :) This is why I haven't been able to
just go "cold-turkey" into either the low-carb or paleo diets. I have
to ease into this...because I know myself and I soon as I run across some
sort of article that bad mouths low carb...I'd be chowing on a slice of
pizza....now there's a healthy thought. I have been working on getting
rid of foods that have absolutely no nutritional value.
There's an article in the current Prevention on how all those carbs can
be bad for you. It quotes one doctor as saying something like, "We'd
be better off banning white bread than worrying about saccharin." Not a
direct quote...but fairly close. :) I completely agree with that.
I've babbled quite enough for one morning. :) Hee...talk to you guys
later. I'm making a trip to the grocery store this evening. The paleo
world needs to look out because Lady Ariel is on her way....I'm bringing
my tea with though. :)
Oh...I just *HAD* to tell you guys this. The other night I was telling
my husband about the Neanderthin web site...and I said, "Yeah, it sounds
easy: Don't eat anything you couldn't catch if you were naked with a big
stick in the wilderness." He got this huge grin on his face and he said,
"Well then you shouldn't be eating that chicken because I doubt you could
catch a chicken." :)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lady Ariel [log in to unmask]
"Queen of Tea"
On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Michele Wiedemer wrote:
> ---Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Ray, this doesn't explain how my cholesterol went from 226 to 320 in
> three months without drinking any coffee at all. I can cite other
> literature documenting substantial rises in cholesterol on ketogenic
> diets, though not as dramatic as Andersen's.
>
>
> Todd and everyone,
> I just wanted to add my 2 cents' worth (if that) about this
> cholesterol discussion. We are all influenced by the incredible
> simplicity of health information and advice. The cholesterol issue is
> almost certainly a very complex process, and one cannot necessarily
> draw a direct correlation between one factor and another (like diet
> and raised levels)--even though that's exactly what researchers seem
> to try to do.
>
> I've recently done some reading on homocysteine and how it fits into
> the cholesterol picture. Studies seem to now be revealing that it's at
> least as important as cholesterol as a risk factor for heart disease,
> if not more important than cholesterol (again, that simplistic
> thinking). However, I understand that what seems to happen is the
> homocysteine does the blood vessel damage and the cholesterol comes
> in to repair the damage. So it seems logical that if the homocysteine
> levels are raised and causing blood vessel damage, the cholesterol
> levels would raise in response.
>
> It is furthermore logical that on a diet high in animal foods and low
> in b vitamins would contribute to high homocysteine levels.
> Homocysteine is simply an intermediary breakdown of the amino acid
> methionine, which is certainly found in animal foods. The conversion
> from homocysteine to a less "free-radical" producing substances
> requires an enzymatic process involving folic acid, B12 and B6.
> Perhaps with good absorption one would get enough B12 and B6 from
> animal foods, but I don't know about folic acid. The best sources are
> always listed as whole grains, legumes, peanuts, and other foods that
> we have probably cut out, as well as green leafy vegetables, which I
> know I don't eat enough of.
>
> Anyway, it would be interesting to see if those with high cholesterol
> also have high homocysteine, and if by lowering the homocysteine
> (through b vitamin supplementation) the cholesterol levels also go
> down. Again, this is still somewhat simplistic thinking. I believe
> there are probably many other factors involved that we haven't
> identified yet. But it would be interesting to see.
>
> Here is a link to just one of many articles on homocysteine.
> http://www.west.net/~lifelink/tmg152.htm
>
> Michele
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
|
