Cholesterol's Function?

[Jaym1212]

What are the main functions of cholesterol? Is is to repair
cell walls? If so, which parts of the body have a high rate of
repair? Is it the gut wall and brain?

Even though I am thin (5'10 120 lb), my cholesterol level is
high and rising.

2005 2003 ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- Chol 291 278 252 447
HDL 93 71 81 92 LDL 187 197 161 350 TG 56 51 51 79
Ch/H 3.13 3.92 3.11 5.66 FBG 88 86 86 75 1AC 5.6 5.5 5.4
6.2 CRP <0.2

I exercise about 15 minutes, 4 times a week and below is my
typical meal which I eat 4 times a day.

Various vegetables (steamed and raw). 3 hard boiled eggs
(whites only, sometimes salmon, sardines) 1 TBS of olive oil
or coconut oil. A few nuts such as almonds, pecans, etc.
Fruits occassionally (mostly apples and berries).

I have reactions to grain-fed meats of any kind, milk
products, legumes (esp soy), grains (esp wheat), citrus and
oddly canteloupe.

[Cubit]

Cholesterol info: http://www.thincs.org/

"jaym1212" <jaym1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111683360.782609.204210@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> What are the main functions of cholesterol? Is is to repair
> cell walls? If so, which parts of the body have a high rate
> of repair? Is it the gut wall and brain?
>
> Even though I am thin (5'10 120 lb), my cholesterol level is
> high and rising.
>
> 2005 2003 ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- Chol 291 278 252
> 447 HDL 93 71 81 92 LDL 187 197 161 350 TG 56 51 51 79
> Ch/H 3.13 3.92 3.11 5.66 FBG 88 86 86 75 1AC 5.6 5.5 5.4 6.2
> CRP <0.2
>
> I exercise about 15 minutes, 4 times a week and below is my
> typical meal which I eat 4 times a day.
>
> Various vegetables (steamed and raw). 3 hard boiled eggs
> (whites only, sometimes salmon, sardines) 1 TBS of olive oil
> or coconut oil. A few nuts such as almonds, pecans, etc.
> Fruits occassionally (mostly apples and berries).
>
> I have reactions to grain-fed meats of any kind, milk
> products, legumes (esp soy), grains (esp wheat), citrus and
> oddly canteloupe.

[John Sanke]

My cholesterol level was bothering my doctor too. See
http://sankey.ws/cholesterol.html for what worked for me.

[Philemon]

Cholesterol is, inter alia, the precursor of most of your
body's hormones. Cut it excessively and you will probably have
severe endocrine dysfunction. Your body's ability to deal
effectively with excess fat would seem to be genetically
determined, according to latest ressearch. Let us hope they
are wrong. A balanced diet and plenty of exercise will work
wonders. Watching a biased view of your intake will not.

jaym1212 wrote:
> What are the main functions of cholesterol? Is is to repair
> cell walls? If so, which parts of the body have a high rate
> of repair? Is it the gut wall and brain?
>
> Even though I am thin (5'10 120 lb), my cholesterol level is
> high and rising.
>
> 2005 2003 ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- Chol 291 278 252
> 447 HDL 93 71 81 92 LDL 187 197 161 350 TG 56 51 51 79
> Ch/H 3.13 3.92 3.11 5.66 FBG 88 86 86 75 1AC 5.6 5.5 5.4 6.2
> CRP <0.2
>
> I exercise about 15 minutes, 4 times a week and below is my
> typical meal which I eat 4 times a day.
>
> Various vegetables (steamed and raw). 3 hard boiled eggs
> (whites only, sometimes salmon, sardines) 1 TBS of olive oil
> or coconut oil. A few nuts such as almonds, pecans, etc.
> Fruits occassionally (mostly apples and berries).
>
> I have reactions to grain-fed meats of any kind, milk
> products, legumes (esp soy), grains (esp wheat), citrus and
> oddly canteloupe.

[Robert]

"Cubit" <no@not.not> wrote in message
news:v8E0e.1343$FN4.53@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Cholesterol info: http://www.thincs.org/
>
>
> "jaym1212" <jaym1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:111-
> 1683360.782609.204210@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > What are the main functions of cholesterol? Is is to
> > repair cell walls?

An association was established between cholesterol and various
forms of lipids and heart disease. Whether cholesterol or any
form of cholesterol, oxidized included, is involved directly
within a pathogenic model is unimportant. What is more
important is if drugs or modification of lipids reduces the
risk by what ever mechanism whether or not it is related to
cholesterol. In short is if it works then who cares why it
works. Theories as to why things happen or don't are not as
important as practical solid evidence that they do work or
don't work. It is called empirical evidence. The reason why I
say that is because you get arguements by those people who
like to say cholesterol is good for you and that it has not
been proven that it is the culprit in causeing disease but is
only a reaction to disease etc. Then it is only a marker for
disease and not involved in the pathogenesis is still being
worked out. The exact pathophysiology is still not worked out
completely. With each new established small part then comes
interventional remedies and they look at outcomes.

Here is part of their arguement. ?Members of this group
represent different views about the causation of
atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease".

That is horse shit. First associations are made then the
pathophysiology is worked out. Associations have been made
with several lipids and have been determined to be independent
risk factors involving heart disease.

[Robert]

"John Sankey" <bf250@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:d1v92l$f7m$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>
> My cholesterol level was bothering my doctor too. See
> http://sankey.ws/cholesterol.html for what worked for me.

You can't argue with success but as I have mentioned if
somebody were already eating healthy and not eating what they
like then they would not be in that high cholesterol range in
the first place. In short you are saying that if they should
change their entire eating habits in order for them not to get
something they feel they don't have. It is a silent killer
that people ignore and say that they will eat better tomorrow.
If diet works and as you said most of the cholesterol is
endogenously produced then you can not argue with success. The
problems with type two diabetes and diet is well documented
and people still eat and gain weight. What does that tell you?

[Montygram]

Philomon is correct in his first statement. Biochemist Ray
Peat suggests that you should check your thyroid function. You
can do a google search for ray peat thyroid and several useful
web pages will be displayed. As far as taking drugs: they
often mask the underlying, root cause, which should be
corrected. Also, you can destroy your liver or other parts of
your body by taking drugs. I've had several major health
problems since 2000. One doctor wanted me to go on Vioxx, and
I'm very glad I didn't listen to any of them, but instead, I
did my own research and was able to stay out of the biomedical
establishment meat grinder. Good luck to you.

[Cubit]

However, the studies that seemed to associate cholesterol and
CVD were done in the context of modern high carbohydrate
levels. This creates an ambiguity. It is only modern bias that
accepts the carb levels in the Framingham study as normal.

Take away the high carbs and you have a new ballgame.

If I'm wrong, in terms of absolute risk, the added risk is
relatively small.

"Robert" <RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XsWdnQooFqVti97fRVn-ug@got.net...
>
> "Cubit" <no@not.not> wrote in message
> news:v8E0e.1343$FN4.53@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> > Cholesterol info: http://www.thincs.org/
> >
> >
> > "jaym1212" <jaym1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1-
> > 111683360.782609.204210@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > > What are the main functions of cholesterol? Is is to
> > > repair cell
walls?
>
> An association was established between cholesterol and
> various forms of lipids and heart disease. Whether
> cholesterol or any form of cholesterol, oxidized included,
> is involved directly within a pathogenic model is
> unimportant. What is more important is if drugs or
> modification of lipids reduces the risk by what ever
> mechanism whether or not it is related to cholesterol. In
> short is if it works then who cares why it works. Theories
> as to why things happen or don't are not as important as
practical
> solid evidence that they do work or don't work. It is called
> empirical evidence. The reason why I say that is because you
> get arguements by those people
who
> like to say cholesterol is good for you and that it has not
> been proven
that
> it is the culprit in causeing disease but is only a reaction
> to disease
etc.
> Then it is only a marker for disease and not involved in the
> pathogenesis
is
> still being worked out. The exact pathophysiology is still
> not worked out completely. With each new established small
> part then comes interventional remedies and they look at
> outcomes.
>
> Here is part of their arguement. ?Members of this group
> represent different views about the causation of
> atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease".
>
> That is horse shit. First associations are made then the
> pathophysiology
is
> worked out. Associations have been made with several lipids
> and have been determined
to
> be independent risk factors involving heart disease.
>
>

[Mirek Fidl]

> An association was established between cholesterol and
> various forms of lipids and heart disease.

I guess "various forms of lipids" is the important part here.

TC is not very predictive.

You you want to base your claims on facts, try first to feed
data of this person (LDL 187, HDL 91, TG 51) to some of risk
calculators that are based on models using actual data. To my
knowledge, this profile is far from atherogenic.

Mirek

[Montygram]

If you are interested, I'll try to determine what's going on
in your body, in terms of what the evidence suggests. I need
to know family history, and of course your
medical/physical/dietary history. It will take you a while,
but I'd be willing to spend some time on it. How much you
eat of each food is essential to know, but otherwise,
provide as much info. as possible, and I'll ask for me if I
think it would be helpful. Let's try to sort this out before
you take drugs.

[Montygram]

If you are interested, I'll try to determine what's going on
in your body, in terms of what the evidence suggests. I need
to know family history, and of course your
medical/physical/dietary history. It will take you a while,
but I'd be willing to spend some time on it. How much you
eat of each food is essential to know, but otherwise,
provide as much info. as possible, and I'll ask for me if I
think it would be helpful. Let's try to sort this out before
you take drugs.

[Robert]

"Mirek Fidler" <cxl@volny.cz> wrote in message
news:3ai3mhF68stk5U1@individual.net...
> > An association was established between cholesterol and
> > various forms of lipids and heart disease.
>
> I guess "various forms of lipids" is the important
> part here.
>
> TC is not very predictive.
>
> You you want to base your claims on facts, try first to feed
> data of this person (LDL 187, HDL 91, TG 51) to some of risk
> calculators that are based on models using actual data. To
> my knowledge, this profile is far from atherogenic.
>
> Mirek

There is no mention of other risk factors to make an LDL goal.
A 187 is far from good. Mine is 70 on statins with goals of
under 100 common. With family history, diabetes or if he had a
recent MI then it is not good. They ususally don't put people
on statins with one risk factor, family, hypertension etc.
There is no mention of age as with increasing age it gets more
fuzzy on benefits overall as predictors of CAD. Sub fractions
of LDL and other lipids were not done so again it is premature
to make declarations. There is differences on male vs female
also so many factors involved before one can make an
assessment and say that "profile is far from atherogenic".

[Mirek Fidl]

>>You you want to base your claims on facts, try first to feed
>>data of this person (LDL 187, HDL 91, TG 51) to some of risk
>>calculators that are based on models using actual data. To
>>my knowledge, this profile is far from atherogenic.
>>
>>Mirek
>
>
> There is no mention of other risk factors to make an LDL
> goal. A 187 is far from good.

HDL 91 and TG 51 is far from bad. Balance is what is really
predictive.

If he is 50 years old, non-smoker, no DM, BP < 120, his
profile indicates same risk (2%) as e.g. one with HDL 50, LDL
120, TG 120 (which would be considered absolutely OK without
further risk factors).

> With family history, diabetes or if he had a recent MI then
> it is not good.

That is true.

> There is no mention of age as with increasing age it gets
> more fuzzy on benefits overall as predictors of CAD.

Hm, I guess opposite is true also. I think best benefit is
somewhere between 40-60 years. Before 40, CAD event is too
unlikely, after 60 it is too fuzzy as you have said.

> There is differences on male vs female also so many factors
> involved before one can make an assessment and say that
> "profile is far from atherogenic".

This specific profile is low-risk (that is, less than 10% for
10 years prediction) both for male and female for all ages.

Of course, little we know about other risk factors (but based
on low TG DM or MetS diagnosis is unlikely). Anyway given
this profile alone, risk is definitely low (<10% is
considered low AFAIK).

Mirek

[Jaym1212]

> Let's try to sort this out before you take drugs.

Thanks. My doctor and friends are recommending statins which I
would like to avoid. Neither mom or dad has had a cardiac
event, however both are prediabetic (ie FBG 110). Mom had high
BP but now 120/80. Dad had sugar in urine but not anymore.
Both lowered their carb (rice and wheat) intake.

I am 40 yr old. No CVD. BP is 110/70. The last blood profile
included C-Reactive Protein test which was < 0.2 . About 2
years, I switched from the typical American diet (minus junk
foods / soft drinks) to less carbs and more veges and fruits.
For about the last 6 months, a typical day had 4 meals. In
general, each meal contained the following (which would
blended to approx 0.75 liter):

Protein: 3 or 4 boiled egg whites (yolk once or twice a week).
Fats: 1 to 1.5 tbs of extra virgin coconut or olive oil
(sometimes 1/2 an avocado). Lite carbs: Lettuce, celery. Med
carbs: 2 cups of brocolli, califlower, cabbage, okra, zuchinni
or similar. (sometimes spinach, kale, collards).
1/4 of small tomato, 1/4 of chili. Dense carbs:
1/16 sweet potato, 1/4 carrots, 1/8 onion, 1
clove garlic, small slice of turmeric and
ginger. Fruits: about a dozen frozen berries.
Supplements: Multi-vitamin capsule, 1/4 tbs
flaxseeds.

I have been snacking 2 or 3 times a day. I usually have tea
and a fruit (usually apples, sometimes bananas). Sometimes a
dozen almonds or pecans. Sometimes a cup.

I believe my gut is compromised as the following foods cause
me inflammation: All dairy, all grain-fed meats, many grains
and legumes and citrus. I used to eat these almost every
single day prior to two years ago. I believe my liver is
probably weak. If I consume just a 1/4 cup of wine, I get dark
circle under eyes the next morning. Would a damaged liver or
gut lining raise my cholesterol?

[Adam Becke]

jaym1212 wrote:
> What are the main functions of cholesterol? Is is to
> repair cell
walls?
> If so, which parts of the body have a high rate of repair?
> Is it the gut wall and brain?

The basic thing cholesterol does is to stablize fat globules
so they can sit in suspension in an aquaeous solution. So the
cholesterol in chlyomicrons, VLDL, LDL is there so the body
can move fat around via the blood. Similarly it stablizes the
fatty membranes around cells.

The body also uses it as a building block to make other
things. Others have commented on the role that cholesterol
plays as the starting point for the steroid hormones. I'll
mention that cholesterol is converted into bile acids which
are used to transport fat from the GI tract over to the blood.
For a blow-by-blow description of this, check out the slide
show at Baylor College of Medicine:
http://www.lipidsonline.org/slides/slide01.cfm?tk=31

This slide show will show you how and why sterols, stanols,
fibre, bile acid resins etc lower LDL and raise HDL.

Adam Becker

[Montygram]

If you think there is something wrong with your liver, ask
your doctor about running some tests. I'm a thin 40 year old
male also, and I had a horrible malabsorption problem. I cured
that with stomach acid (HCl) and pepsin pills (by Country
Life). I think I had horrible yeast overgrowth (I had bad
mouth thrush too). So I'd look into that if I were you. If you
feel burning, you can just drink water until it goes away. 8
ounces should be good to neutralize one pill.

I'd go easy on the dark, leafy vegetables, as they have potent
inhibitors in them. A little is okay. I'd dump the flax seeds
entirely. You don't seem to be eating much in the way of omega
6s, so the omega 3s are useless to you, and will only create
oxidative stress, though if you don't grind them, they won't
do anything. A can of sardines in oil once is well is probably
okay, but not much more than that. Eat the egg yolks too. The
egg whites contribute to serotogenic conditions.

Now, let's be clear: do you have only gut symptoms? And you
blood numbers look like they are mixed up. The HDL is too
high, so you might have mixed them up with the TGs. And what
year is what? Or, just post what your numbers are from your
last test - that should be good enough, actually. My
cholesterol was 209 last time, with 63 HDL and 123 LDL. On a
vegan diet for many years, it was 131, 40, and about 90. Big
difference, but who cares? Cholesterol lower than 200 is bad
news, and I'm glad I know that now, but yours is over 200, so
why worry? If you cholesterol is way over 220, you may be
hypothyroid to some degree. I'd also cut back on the exercise.
What's the point? Exercise is stressful, so as long as you are
active throughout the day, don't put any extra burden on your
body. If you do, eat a few raisins before and during, or right
afterwards. That will take care of oxidative stress that
exercise creates. Also, exercise requires more protein, and
your diet may be low in it.

Rancid nuts can cause lots of problems, and if you eat too
many, even fresh nuts can put a large burden on your gut.
Potatoes are good, being a high quality protein source. Boil
them and put butter and herbs/spices you can tolerate on them.
I like to put tamari sauce on them too.

So...

you need to check some things out, avoid some things, add some
things, and see if the HCl/pepsin pills help. Usually, give it
a month, and your body should tell you if you going in the
right direction.

[Juhana Har]

jaym1212 wrote:
::: Let's try to sort this out before you take drugs.
::
:: Thanks. My doctor and friends are recommending statins
:: which I would like to avoid. [...]

How about trying krill oil? In one study it has been found to
have an impressive effect to blood lipids even in very doses.

Bunea R, El Farrah K, Deutsch L. Evaluation of the effects of
Neptune Krill Oil on the clinical course of hyperlipidemia.
Altern Med Rev. 2004 Dec;9(4):420-8.

Department of Internal Medicine, McGill University, Montreal,
Quebec, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of krill oil on blood lipids,
specifically total cholesterol, triglycerides, low-density
lipoprotein
(LDL), and high-density lipoprotein (HDL). METHODS: A
multi-center, three-month, prospective, randomized study
followed by a three-month, controlled follow-up of
patients treated with 1 g and 1.5 g krill oil daily.
Patients with hyperlipidemia able to maintain a healthy
diet and with blood cholesterol levels between 194 and
348 mg per dL were eligible for enrollment in the trial.
A sample size of 120 patients (30 patients per group) was
randomly assigned to one of four groups. Group A received
krill oil at a body mass index (BMI)-dependent daily
dosage of 2-3 g daily. Patients in Group B were given
1-1.5 g krill oil daily, and Group C was given fish oil
containing 180 mg eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and 120 mg
docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) per gram of oil at a dose of 3
g daily. Group D was given a placebo containing
microcrystalline cellulose. The krill oil used in this
study was Neptune Krill Oil, provided by Neptune
Technologies and Bioresources, Laval, Quebec, Canada.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary parameters tested (baseline and
90-day visit) were total blood cholesterol,
triglycerides, LDL, HDL, and glucose. RESULTS: Krill oil
1-3 g per day (BMI-dependent) was found to be effective
for the reduction of glucose, total cholesterol,
triglycerides, LDL, and HDL, compared to both fish oil
and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present
study demonstrate within high levels of confidence that
krill oil is effective for the management of
hyperlipidemia by significantly reducing total
cholesterol, LDL, and triglycerides, and increasing HDL
levels. At lower and equal doses, krill oil was
significantly more effective than fish oil for the
reduction of glucose, triglycerides, and LDL levels.
PMID: 15656713

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/en­trez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&d-
­b=pubmed&...

I recommend reading the full study:

http://www.thorne.com/altmedre­v/.fulltext/9/4/420.pdf

Couple of sites about krills:

http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/Eistour/krill-e.html

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/invertebrates/crust-
acean/Krillprintout.shtml

--
Juhana

[Robert]

"Mirek Fidler" <cxl@volny.cz> wrote in message
news:3ajis9F6c4scjU1@individual.net...
> >>You you want to base your claims on facts, try first to
> >>feed data of this person (LDL 187, HDL 91, TG 51) to some
> >>of risk calculators that are based on models using actual
> >>data. To my knowledge, this profile is far from
> >>atherogenic.
> >>
> >>Mirek
> >
> >
> > There is no mention of other risk factors to make an LDL
> > goal. A 187 is
far
> > from good.
>
> HDL 91 and TG 51 is far from bad. Balance is what is really
> predictive.
>
> If he is 50 years old, non-smoker, no DM, BP < 120, his
> profile indicates same risk (2%) as e.g. one with HDL 50,
> LDL 120, TG 120 (which would be considered absolutely OK
> without further risk factors).

Not in all cases. Keep in mind that they are "independant"
risk factors which mean that they are independant of each and
every other lipid analytes. HDL is independant of LDL and vice
versa. Each is assigned as a risk factor. If you want to claim
all of them in a whole places the individual in question at
lower risk then you are cheating the concept of independance.

>
>
> > With family history, diabetes or if he had a recent MI
> > then it is not good.
>
> That is true.
>
> > There is no mention of age as with increasing age it gets
> > more fuzzy on benefits overall as predictors of CAD.
>
> Hm, I guess opposite is true also. I think best benefit is
> somewhere between 40-60 years. Before 40, CAD event is too
> unlikely, after 60 it is too fuzzy as you have said.

The best benefit as you mention is within that age group but
the statin therapy with the help of pharm is expanding the
benefits of lipid lowering drugs into other health arenas such
as Alzeheimers. No pathological theories, as only blind
therapies, have shown the benefit of delaying development
Alzeheimers etc. if they continue to hold up.

>
> > There is differences on male vs female also so many
> > factors involved
before
> > one can make an assessment and say that "profile is
> > far from
atherogenic".
>
> This specific profile is low-risk (that is, less than
> 10% for 10 years prediction) both for male and female
> for all ages.
>
> Of course, little we know about other risk factors (but
> based on low TG DM or MetS diagnosis is unlikely). Anyway
> given this profile alone, risk is definitely low (<10% is
> considered low AFAIK).
>
> Mirek

Too early to make that assessment without more input. Those
are numbers acceptable to the conventional testing done. I
understand that but there is a reason why this person started
out with a high glycohemoglobin of 6.1 which is borderline
abnormal. I believe that is A1C and not 1AC. Keep in mind that
some individuals can have a normal lipid profile by
conventional lipid profiles that don't fractionate the LDL and
be dead the next day. A genetically inherited LDL very
atherogenic light form. People see the normal lipid profile
and say that it is useless and does not correlate but in fact
only misleading. There are other risk factors not mentioned
such as CRP and homocysteine and these are non lipid factors
or factors not measured in the lipid profiles. No mention here
so again it is too early to say the individual as a whole is
at risk or not. Statistics based on the relative risks of the
conventional risk factors within this profile it is relatively
low. He might be one of the 10% that will die which be might
acceptable in terms of general health policy and resources but
if the other 10% can be detected and treated properly then you
can cut the odds down even more.

[Juhana Har]

Juhana Harju wrote:
:: jaym1212 wrote:
::::: Let's try to sort this out before you take drugs.
::::
:::: Thanks. My doctor and friends are recommending statins
:::: which I would like to avoid. [...]
::
:: How about trying krill oil? In one study it has been
:: found to have an impressive effect to blood lipids even
:: in very doses.
::
:: Bunea R, El Farrah K, Deutsch L. Evaluation of the effects
:: of Neptune Krill Oil on the clinical course of
:: hyperlipidemia. Altern Med Rev. 2004 Dec;9(4):420-8. [...]
:: RESULTS: Krill oil 1-3 g per day (BMI-dependent) was found
:: to be effective for the reduction of glucose, total
:: cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL, and HDL, compared to both
:: fish oil and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the
:: present study demonstrate within high levels of confidence
:: that krill oil is effective for the management of
:: hyperlipidemia by significantly reducing total cholesterol,
:: LDL, and triglycerides, and increasing HDL levels. At lower
:: and equal doses, krill oil was significantly more effective
:: than fish oil for the reduction of glucose, triglycerides,
:: and LDL levels. PMID: 15656713

These should be functioning URLs:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db-
=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15656713

Here is the full study:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FDN/is_4_9/a-
i_n9485702

"Krill oil at a daily dose of 1 g, 1.5 g, 2 g, or 3 g achieved
significant reductions of LDL of 32, 36, 37, and 39 percent,
respectively (p=0.000)."

--
Juhana

[Juhana Har]

Juhana Harju wrote:
:: Juhana Harju wrote:
:::: jaym1212 wrote:
::::::: Let's try to sort this out before you take drugs.
::::::
:::::: Thanks. My doctor and friends are recommending statins
:::::: which I would like to avoid. [...]
::::
:::: How about trying krill oil? In one study it has been
:::: found to have an impressive effect to blood lipids even
:::: in very doses.
::::
:::: Bunea R, El Farrah K, Deutsch L. Evaluation of the
:::: effects of Neptune Krill Oil on the clinical course of
:::: hyperlipidemia. Altern Med Rev. 2004 Dec;9(4):420-8.
:::: [...] RESULTS: Krill oil 1-3 g per day (BMI-dependent)
:::: was found to be effective for the reduction of glucose,
:::: total cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL, and HDL, compared
:::: to both fish oil and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The results of
:::: the present study demonstrate within high levels of
:::: confidence that krill oil is effective for the management
:::: of hyperlipidemia by significantly reducing total
:::: cholesterol, LDL, and triglycerides, and increasing HDL
:::: levels. At lower and equal doses, krill oil was
:::: significantly more effective than fish oil for the
:::: reduction of glucose, triglycerides, and LDL levels.
:::: PMID: 15656713
::
:: These should be functioning URLs:
::
::
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db-
=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15656713
::
:: Here is the full study:
::
:: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FDN/is_4_9/ai_-
:: n9485702
::
:: "Krill oil at a daily dose of 1 g, 1.5 g, 2 g, or 3 g
:: achieved significant reductions of LDL of 32, 36, 37, and
:: 39 percent, respectively (p=0.000)."

And couple of commercial sites about krill oil (I am not
involved in any supplement business).

http://www.krillbiz.com/krill_oil_omega-3.htm

http://www.discount-vitamins-herbs.net/neptune-krill-oil.htm

--
Juhana

[Jaym1212]

> stomach acid (HCl) and pepsin pills (by Country Life) .. go
> easy on the dark, leafy vegetables .. dump the flax seeds ..
> can of sardines in oil once [a week] .. cut back on the
> exercise .. few raisins before and during, or right
> afterwards exercise .. Potatoes .. Boil .. butter and
> herbs/spices .. Eat the egg yolks too.

I can give all the above a try but am leary about the egg
yolks. Supposedly regular eggs have 650mg n6 / 37mg n3 which
is roughly 18:1. The Eggland's Omega eggs available here are
700mg/100mg which is 7:1 and still seems to be far from 1:1.
Also a regular yolk has 345mg arachidonic acid.

> And you blood numbers look like they are mixed up.

I am copying the numbers from 4 separate lab reports (from
same clinic) so I think they are OK. I have rearranged them
from old (left column) to latest (right column). The initial
447 cholesterol reading was after a 2 day fast instead of the
normal 12 hour fast.

12/03 6/04 11/04 3/05 ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- Chol
447 252 278 291 HDL 92 81 71 93 LDL 350 161 197 187
TG 79 51 51 56
Ch/H 5.66 3.11 3.92 3.13 FBG 75 86 86 88 A1C 6.2 5.4 5.5 5.6
hsCRP na na na <0.2

Prior to 12/03, I was eating lots of fruits and that is
probably why A1C was 6.2. Prior to 6/04, I was eating almost
all vegetables and quite a bit of it raw which gave the lowest
cholesterol level. Prior to
11/04, I was eating more protein (5 egg whites per meal),
very low carb veges and almost no fruits. I was surprised
that the cholesterol and A1C went up anyway. Prior to
3/05, I lowered protein (4 egg whites per meal),
increased veges and added back some fruits. It seem
fruits raise TG and A1C.

> Also, exercise requires more protein, and your diet may be
> low in it.

4 meals x 4 eggs white x 3.3g/egg white = 53g or approx 0.5g
per lb. Is it too low?

> Rancid nuts can cause lots of problems, and if you eat too
> many, even fresh nuts can put a large burden on your gut.

This could have been part of the problem. I am noticing that
about 6 months after reducing almonds, skin inflammation at
joints has started to subside.

> Now, let's be clear: do you have only gut symptoms?

In general, I don't have other health problems but many foods
(except for veges and fruit) cause some type of symptoms. For
example, milk, wheat, soy and meats cause inflamation of skin
around my knuckles. In addition, milk products seems to
increase constipation and meats seems to cause hemorrhoids.

[Montygram]

You are eating a rather strange diet, especially in that you
eat only the egg whites. Peoples of the past didn't do this
sort of thing. They ate the whole animal or egg. Ray Peat has
talked about the unhealthy aspects of eating only parts of
animal products, especially the serotongenic effects. If you
are a bit hypothyroid, that could be the reason for the high
cholesterol, but you've got a incredibly high HDL. Did your
doctor say anything about that? I'd be curious to hear what a
doctor would say about it. I lost 30 pounds within a couple of
months and had other major problems. It really doesn't sound
like you've got major problems, so make those changes and tell
us what's going on in a month.

[Montygram]

Forgot to mention: I take calcium citrate and magnesium, as
well as selenium, vitamin D and a B complex. You could have
some deficiencies. Use some nutritional yeast. I take about
half a teaspoon or so with each meal. Also, try Metagenics
whey powder, which is the best quality, organic,
non-pasteurized, etc. I forgot what they call it, exactly, but
a local health food store sells it right off the shelf. See if
that bothers you. Carrageenan is a big problem in processed
dairy products.

[gehayw]

Have you located a chart that shows arachidonic content of
foods?

[Juhana Har]

gehayw@hotmail.com wrote:
:: Have you located a chart that shows arachidonic content
:: of foods?

Here is data about foods high in arachidonic acid (20:4).
Beware of farmed fish.

http://www.nutritiondata.com/foods-000064000000000000000-w.ht-
ml

--
Juhana

[Alf Christ]

On 26 Mar 2005 13:45:15 -0800, "jaym1212"
<jaym1212@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I can give all the above a try but am leary about the egg
>yolks. Supposedly regular eggs have 650mg n6 / 37mg n3 which
>is roughly 18:1. The Eggland's Omega eggs available here are
>700mg/100mg which is 7:1 and still seems to be far from 1:1.
>Also a regular yolk has 345mg arachidonic acid.

Very difficult to give any figure of those data since the
feeding practice changes from one producer to another, and
eating habits changes from one hen to another,

Now and then I get eggs over here that seems to have been
produced by a hen eating only omega-3 containing food, tasting
really terrible.

[Alf Christ]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 10:13:11 +0300, "Juhana Harju"
<shantigiri@despammed.com> wrote:

>gehayw@hotmail.com wrote:
>:: Have you located a chart that shows arachidonic content of
>:: foods?
>
>Here is data about foods high in arachidonic acid (20:4).
>Beware of farmed fish.
>
>http://www.nutritiondata.com/foods-0000640000000000000-
>00-w.html

A good reason why both feeding practice and ratio should be
documented for every batch produced.

Some farmers use mainly omega-3 acid based diets (gives
expensive fish, but healthy), while too many thinks only on
profits and give a damn about negative health effects and give
no omega-3 fatty acids at all, using soy proteins and fats
(refined for omega-3 since that make the oil less storable)
and other omega-6 acid containing food.

Since consumers are told to eat fat fish due to omega-3, such
products are in practice illegal and should be sued for fraud.

I hope some of you would be doing that.

[Mirek Fidl]

>>If he is 50 years old, non-smoker, no DM, BP < 120, his
>>profile indicates same risk (2%) as e.g. one with HDL 50,
>>LDL 120, TG 120 (which would be considered absolutely OK
>>without further risk factors).
>
>
> Not in all cases. Keep in mind that they are "independant"
> risk factors which mean that they are independant of each
> and every other lipid analytes. HDL is independant of LDL
> and vice versa.

No. That is what I want to say. It is not independent.

> Each is assigned as a risk factor. If you want to claim all
> of them in a whole places the individual in question at
> lower risk then you are cheating the concept of
> independance.

There is none.

Even if LDL causes CAD, exact mechanism is unknown. In that
situation, all you have is raw statistic data. Those data
clearly indicate that what really matters is balance, not
absolute values. You have profiles indicating high risks and
profiles indicating low risks.

>>This specific profile is low-risk (that is, less than
>>10% for 10 years prediction) both for male and female
>>for all ages.
>>
>>Of course, little we know about other risk factors (but
>>based on low TG DM or MetS diagnosis is unlikely). Anyway
>>given this profile alone, risk is definitely low (<10% is
>>considered low AFAIK).
>>
>>Mirek
>
>
> Too early to make that assessment without more input. Those
> are numbers

I am not makeing assessment, (BTW, I am not qualified to do
that, I take this as informal chat about lipid issues over
usenet), I was just commenting lipid profile :)

> acceptable to the conventional testing done. I understand
> that but there is a reason why this person started out with
> a high glycohemoglobin of 6.1 which is borderline abnormal.
> I believe that is A1C and not 1AC.

You are right here. I did not liked his A1C too. Seems he
started some kind of life-style modification in 2003....

> Keep in mind that some individuals can have a normal lipid
> profile by conventional lipid profiles that don't
> fractionate the LDL and be dead the next day. A genetically
> inherited LDL very atherogenic light form.

Well, now you are going deeper and that is good. Anyway, that
is exactly what I wanted to show you. In fact, there seems to
be well established inverse correlation between LDL particle
size and TG.

That is in good accordance with large statical volumes that
not surprisingly show high risks for profiles estimated to
indicate small LDL particles.

> There are other risk factors not mentioned such as CRP and
> homocysteine and these are non lipid factors or factors not
> measured in the lipid profiles.

Sure there are. All should be accounted for. And do not forget
about family history, BMI and age, later being the most
predictive risk factor of all :)

> No mention here so again it is too early to say the
> individual as a whole is at risk or not.

That is not what I said. I was speaking about his lipid
profile, nothing more, nothing less.

> Statistics based on the relative risks of the conventional
> risk factors within this profile it is relatively low. He
> might be one of the 10% that will die which be might
> acceptable in terms

2% for CAD event if he has no other risk factors. Not 10%.

> of general health policy and resources but if the other 10%
> can be detected and treated properly then you can cut the
> odds down even more.

The question is how much improvement can be achieved here when
"treated properly". Statins show reduction od CAD events by
30% AFAIK in high rist patients (correct me if I am wrong). So
you could reduce risk to about 1.4%. In other words, his
chance of being CAD free would increase from 98% to 98.6%.
(All that in case there are no other risk factors, so those 2%
are final).

Mirek

[Robert]

"Mirek Fidler" <cxl@volny.cz> wrote in message
news:3ar5svF6bekrtU1@individual.net...
> >>If he is 50 years old, non-smoker, no DM, BP < 120, his
> >>profile indicates same risk (2%) as e.g. one with HDL 50,
> >>LDL 120, TG 120 (which would be considered absolutely OK
> >>without further risk factors).
> >
> >
> > Not in all cases. Keep in mind that they are "independant"
> > risk factors which mean that they are independant of each
> > and every other lipid
analytes.
> > HDL is independant of LDL and vice versa.
>
> No. That is what I want to say. It is not independent.
>
> > Each is assigned as a risk factor. If you want to claim
> > all of them in a whole places the individual in question
> > at lower risk then you are
cheating
> > the concept of independance.
>
> There is none.
>
> Even if LDL causes CAD, exact mechanism is unknown. In that
> situation, all you have is raw statistic data. Those data
> clearly indicate that what really matters is balance, not
> absolute values. You have profiles indicating high risks and
> profiles indicating low risks.
No each risk factor is assessed on it's own by it's level in
terms of high risk or not and then each is added up to obtain
a profile overal risk if needed. In reality if you have only
one high risk factor on the lipid profile test like say only
HDL or only LDL then you look at the clinical risk factors in
order to set treatment goals. It is not all determined by lab
values. It is lab values in addition to clinical risk factors.

>
> >>This specific profile is low-risk (that is, less than
> >>10% for 10 years prediction) both for male and female
> >>for all ages.
> >>
> >>Of course, little we know about other risk factors (but
> >>based on low TG DM or MetS diagnosis is unlikely). Anyway
> >>given this profile alone, risk is definitely low (<10% is
> >>considered low AFAIK).
> >>
> >>Mirek
> >
> >
> > Too early to make that assessment without more input.
> > Those are numbers
>
> I am not makeing assessment, (BTW, I am not qualified to do
> that, I take this as informal chat about lipid issues over
> usenet), I was just commenting lipid profile :)
>
> > acceptable to the conventional testing done. I understand
> > that but there
is
> > a reason why this person started out with a high
> > glycohemoglobin of 6.1 which is borderline abnormal. I
> > believe that is A1C and not 1AC.
>
> You are right here. I did not liked his A1C too. Seems he
> started some kind of life-style modification in 2003....
>
> > Keep in mind that some individuals can have a normal lipid
> > profile by conventional lipid profiles that don't
> > fractionate the LDL and be dead
the
> > next day. A genetically inherited LDL very atherogenic
> > light form.
>
> Well, now you are going deeper and that is good. Anyway,
> that is exactly what I wanted to show you. In fact, there
> seems to be well established inverse correlation between LDL
> particle size and TG.
That is why TG is not an independent risk factor but a crude
marker for other athrogenic lipids like LDL size.

>
> That is in good accordance with large statical volumes that
> not surprisingly show high risks for profiles estimated to
> indicate small LDL particles.
That is correct but again those are only some but not all the
risk factors.
>
> > There are other risk factors not mentioned such as CRP and
> > homocysteine
and
> > these are non lipid factors or factors not measured in
> > the lipid
profiles.
>
> Sure there are. All should be accounted for. And do not
> forget about family history, BMI and age, later being the
> most predictive risk factor of all :)
That is because we don't know all the laboratory markers yet
and some families have very specific defects that may not show
up on mass screening in a large setting.

>
> > No mention here so again it is too early to say the
> > individual as a
whole is
> > at risk or not.
>
> That is not what I said. I was speaking about his lipid
> profile, nothing more, nothing less.
When you start using percentile as risk factors it is assumed
that the family history and phsyical are negative with the
laboratory markers being the only risk factors. We do not know
that for sure.
>
> > Statistics based on the relative risks of the conventional
> > risk factors within this profile it is relatively low. He
> > might be one of the 10% that will die which be might
> > acceptable in
terms
>
> 2% for CAD event if he has no other risk factors. Not 10%.
>
> > of general health policy and resources but if the other
> > 10% can be
detected
> > and treated properly then you can cut the odds down
> > even more.
>
> The question is how much improvement can be achieved here
> when "treated properly". Statins show reduction od CAD
> events by 30% AFAIK in high rist patients (correct me if I
> am wrong). So you could reduce risk to about 1.4%. In other
> words, his chance of being CAD free would increase from 98%
> to 98.6%. (All that in case there are no other risk factors,
> so those 2% are final).
>
> Mirek
Patients with only one risk factor and negative family
histories and negative physicals ie hypertension are not put
on statins.

[Pizza Girl]

Why do you take a calcium supplement?

"montygram" <nazztrader@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1111895872.468077.175180@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Forgot to mention: I take calcium citrate and magnesium, as
> well as selenium, vitamin D and a B complex. You could have
> some deficiencies. Use some nutritional yeast. I take about
> half a teaspoon or so with each meal. Also, try Metagenics
> whey powder, which is the best quality, organic,
> non-pasteurized, etc. I forgot what they call it, exactly,
> but a local health food store sells it right off the shelf.
> See if that bothers you. Carrageenan is a big problem in
> processed dairy products.