Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Low levels of cholesterol are possible and it is life threatening!! I had moderately high cholesterol at 270 and I did something about - it went too low at 150 (not seriously low mind you) but I let it rise back up to 204 (pretty well perfect level) as I was aware that too low is worse than too high (unless it is excessively high with LDL and vLDL.

Studies of hunter gatherers eating diets that are healthy and non-western, more like the 'original' human diet, usually show that the "natural" human plasma cholesterol is around 120-130.

For example, see this reference to the Tamahuara Indians of Mexico, who have a very low risk of heart disease, and a super healthy high fibre diet: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1944471

Their average total cholesterol was 121, and after experimental feeding of western diets this rose to a peak of ~159! You call this too low and dangerous, but there is little to no evidence that supports your view.

Bear in mind that low plasma cholesterol is a symptom of, that is caused by, a number of serious diseases, including cancer, AIDS and many others. So if you take a hundred people with extremely low total cholesterol, they will have a higher death rate than 100 random people, not sorted by plasma cholesterol concentration, simply because they have a greater incidence of serious disease , which is both causing their low cholesterol, and causing their decreased life expectancy.

You should also check out this thread: one poster who is high risk for heart disease and already has a stent reports sustained lowering of his plasma cholesterol to around 160, and is very happy, and not dying. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/678634-diet-tips-for-high-blood-pressure-and-cholesterol/page-6

Edit: corrected figure

I like the way that you edited the figure to correct it and still got it wrong!!!

The figure I was referring to that I corrected was the total cholesterol in the Tamahuara Indians after western diet feeding ( I wrote 151 originally, but correct value was 159).

In the quote here chiang mai actually wrote 140 but in the thread that I link to, I pointed out to him that this figure must be wrong. (I didn't want to alter his original post here as a matter of courtesy and forum rules.)

However in a reply post to me on the thread I linked to, he agreed, saying that he wrote 140 by mistake, and he meant 160.

You'll see all this if you read that thread!

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

I get the impression that maths wasn't you're strongest suit at school!!!

So you are saying that 76 + 74 doesn't equal 140 but it equals 160clap2.gif.

I would get a new abacus if I was you!!!

Posted

I get the impression that maths wasn't you're strongest suit at school!!!

So you are saying that 76 + 74 doesn't equal 140 but it equals 160clap2.gif.

I would get a new abacus if I was you!!!

No, I am just well aware that total plasma cholesterol is composed of :

HDL cholesterol + LDL cholesterol + VLDL cholesterol.

As only the first two are given here obviously the additional cholesterol carried by VLDL is going to add up to more!

Again , if you actually read the thread I linked to you would see that I already mentioned there that VLDL usually carries around 10% of the plasma cholesterol in the fasting state, when lipid tests are usually done.

But somehow I don't feel that information is what you are really after here.

Posted

I have to say, I have never read such a lot of unmitigated <deleted>, misinformation, scientific illiteracy and sheer blatant fantasy and fabrication as this thread.

YouTube and websites designed to sell you quack medicines by disseminating made up facts are the not a source of scientific truth.

No scientist or qualified clinician would make any use of these sources, or take them seriously.

No doctor or scientist in the field has ever claimed that cholesterol is a toxin, or that it is unnecessary for normal cellular function. So arguments that try to knock down this position are trying to knock down something that has never been claimed (except by the nonsensical websites that create this argument in order to knock it down). What is more there is no situation in which too little cholesterol is a danger - it is synthesized by every cell in the body, and you can never run out.

VLDL is not intrinsically any more dangerous than LDL, as Sheryl points out it is the ratios and amounts of the different lipoproteins in the blood that present increased or decreased risk for heart disease. These liporoteins also serve essential metabolic functions, and when present in the correct amounts are necessary, just like cholesterol itself.

In fact VLDL is made by the liver in order to supply the peripheral tissues with triglycerides, their function is to transport triglyceride.

After releasing its triglyceride VLDL becomes LDL. Yes exactly: LDL is a metabolic product of VLDL.

The function of HDL is to transport cholesterol out of the periphery (eg diseased cells in arteries that are turning into atherosclerotic plaques) and back to the liver for excretion. This is why HDL is good. HDL is partially made from products released from the surface of VLDL as it gives up its triglyceride, which is why VLDL and HDL levels are often inversely proportional to each other.

You can see that these pathways are all intertwined and necessary - it is their distortion by diet, inactivity, genetics, etc etc etc that cause problems.

The connection between Vitamin D and cholesterol is that they are derivatives. Cholesterol contains the steroid ring which all steroid hormones contain, so all steroid hormones are made from cholesterol.

The fact that the members of one family survived to a ripe old age without obeying any health advice about cholesterol is as irrelevant to the question of whether increased blood LDL cholesterol is a risk factor for heart disease, as my great grandfather's survival of 4 years trench fighting in the First World War is irrelevant to the question of whether trench warfare is a hazard to health.

Scientific truth about degree of risk comes from statistical analysis of very large numbers or people and their disease outcomes: this is called epidemiology and is the opposite of anecdotes about a few people, because its truth content and applicability is immeasurably larger.

  • 1 month later...
Posted

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Good topic, I'm in a similar position smile.png

Bad:

Eggs, the yolks especially. This is probably the #1 contributor to high LDL levels, so no more phad Thai, no more fried eggs on pad krapow, etc.

Seafood (except fish), the worst offender being squid, but mussels, oysters and other shellfish also best avoided.

Red meat, especially processed and fatty meat such as burgers. A lean, good quality steak wouldn't be too bad but a McDonald's burger would be terrible

Anything deep fried

Anything fried in palm oil

Fatty dairy foods: Cheese, full fat milk, butter, mayonnaise, etc.

Offal (liver, kidneys, etc.) and this therefore also falls under burgers, sausages and the like.

Processed meat such as salami, streaky bacon, cold cuts.

Any other fatty meat so avoid chicken skin, fatty pork, etc.

Good:

Fish of any kind (but not deep fried, but even that would be better than deep fried other meats)

Ginger

Garlic

Green tea

Dark chocolate (apparently, but this seems to be a bit disputed)

All fruit and veg in general (as long as not fried in palm oil or whatever)

Grains and fibre

Nuts

Pulses

Also do 150 minutes aerobic exercise per week. I've now started doing 30 minutes every day mid-week. Cod Liver Oil tablets also help apparently.

I think some good Thai dishes would be:

- Isaan salads such as somtam

- Kai pad khing (chicken fried in ginger)

- Pad pak ruam

- Nam prik

- Kua kring and other non-seafood, non-deep fried southern Thai food

I must admit that a lot of the LDL increasing ingredients do crop up an awful not in Thai food, and a lot of street food uses palm oil apparently.

You don't need to live like a complete health freak though. Beer, for example, doesn't contribute to LDL levels (but affects triglyceride I think).

But most of your stuff listed in the "Bad" category are things I LOVE!! 5555

Same here take all the bad stuff away nothing left on my diet!!!! Wonder how long a person could last living on just nuts and grass blades ??? Spose you,d lose weight then die so the good stuff aint relly good in the long term!

Posted

Here is an interesting VDO about an australian couple, she 62, he 67 who rand 365 consecutive marathons circumnavigating Australia, eating only raw fruit & vegatables.

Nine months ago I tried raw veganism (~95%) as an experiment.

Previously I ate and drank everything...with gusto.

Down 15 kilos and feeling GREAT.

Diastolic BP now @ 103mm from 141.

No more yummie carrion for me thanks.

Karmic benefits...?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...