> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paleolithic Eating Support List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paula H.
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 7:33 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Low Cholesterol and Disease
> 
> I am dealing with the cardiologist's statement on TC.

Yes, and unfortunately the cardiologist is focusing on a sub-optimal figure
when it comes to determining what is "too low." Since total cholesterol
includes BOTH bad and GOOD cholesterol, it makes much more sense to look at
the individual elements than at the total figure.

The studies cited by the Second Opinions site do look interesting, but I
don't know whether there has been enough study of the subject to determine
what level of total cholesterol is too low, and the mix of good and bad
elements in total cholesterol complicates such studies. 

My lab reports show a clinical "normal" range of 140-200, but I don't know
if any health problems were connected with levels below 140 in determining
that lower number. My guess is it's based on average statistical data rather
than direct health connections.

Perhaps your cardiologist meant LDL instead of total cholesterol? If not,
perhaps you could steer him in the right direction by saying something like:
	
	"HDL is GOOD cholesterol, right? So we wouldn't want HDL to go too
low, right? And the HDL figure is part of the total cholesterol figure,
right? So we wouldn't want total cholesterol too be zero because that would
mean no good HDL cholesterol, right? So it is theoretically possible for
total cholesterol to be too low, since we don't want HDL to go to zero, but
it makes more sense to look at individual lipid numbers since some
cholesterol is bad and some is good, right?"

Then, when it comes to the individual stats you can point to the minimum
levels on the ranges and say, "The lab report shows minimum ranges for HDL
and LDL, so we wouldn't want the numbers to go below those, right?"

If the cardiologist is so thick-headed that he won't discuss anything other
than total cholesterol, then it's time to get a new cardiologist. My general
practitioner recognizes the limitations of the total cholesterol number and
he therefore focuses on the more telling numbers, like HDL, triglycerides
and C-reactive protein. My parents' doctor told them the same thing.

So arguing over total cholesterol is essentially a waste of breath, since
the figure is almost (though not quite) irrelevant. That's why I always look
at the individual elements, not the total figure, and that's the direction
the medical community should be directing people (as my doctor does).

------------------------------------------------------
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paleolithic Eating Support List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Paleo Phil
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:44 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [P-F] Low Cholesterol and Disease
> 
> 
> TOTAL cholesterol levels don't indicate much, including low total
> cholesterol. It is possible to go too low on the individual lipids that
> make
> up total cholesterol (HDLs and LDLs), as well as triglycerides. Those
> are
> the figures you should be looking at, along with C-reactive protein,
> etc.

...

> The
> cardiologist was going on and on about how it is impossible to have TC
> that
> is too low and that there are absolutely no studies showing that very
> low TC
> is harmful.