This article has total cholesterol counts for some hunter gatherer groups:

Eaton SB, Konner M, Shostak M. Stone agers in the fast lane: chronic degenerative diseases in evolutionary perspective. Am J Med. 1988 Apr;84(4):739-49.

Here are the numbers for males:



These are all hunter gatherer groups, but the "rudimentary horticulturalists", the "simple agriculturists" and the "pastoralists" have similar low levels. The highest number on the list is 180 for Rural Samoan females, who are "simple agriculturists".

Considering that the average Paleo dieter has high blood cholesterol, sometimes well into the 300s, or at least so many of them have high cholesterol, and regardless of the impact or lack of impact of high total cholesterol on health, don't the above data make anyone wonder if we are doing it wrong? If we were actually eating like a hunter gatherer, shouldn't we have low total cholesterol numbers? Or don't we exercise enough?

I don't mean to sound flippant but the only response I can come up with is 'so?'.

You can spend your life chasing a number or you can choose to live happy and healthy the best way you know how.

There could be six-thousand reasons why we in developed nations have higher cholesterol, environmental toxins, the stress of a modern life, even the genetic component of a few hundred generations eating a sub-optimal diet (side-note: was watching a documentary on the BBC about food science, the stuff they used to add to food back in the 1800's included lead and well-known poisons, we really have it much better in some respects nowadays).

High cholesterol could be a protective mechanism for any one of the million differences between us and primitive society (in women higher cholesterol is associated with less risk of disease and longer life). We probably aren't the same average height as various hunter-gatherer societies either, I ain't gonna sweat it.

There is actually a theory that we are taller than hunter-gatherers because excess insulin stimulates excess growth. So maybe it's something we should be worried about as well.

I chalk it up to not actually being a hunter/gatherer. Really hard to say why, the human body is complicated. They haven't really even figured out what cholesterol is a marker for, if anything.

Nah, there are too many 'black swans' that contradict that theory. Tallness has a far stronger association with better nutrition than excess insulin (I supposed defined by fasting insulin?). If not then why did height reduce on average by 4" on the introduction of agriculture?

But I see your point and I doubt we'll ever come close to mimicking all the health markers of hunter-gatherers. (I struggle with keeping my n3 and n6's balanced - too fond of avocados! This was probably effortless for paleolithic man). I guess it's a trade off for having a good chance of living past the age of five.

Maybe both better nutrition and excess insulin cause increased height. Otherwise, it would mean we are better nourished than the hunter gatherers, so why are we trying to eat like them? In Kitava there is no shortage of food but the average height for men is about 5 ft IIRC.

Anyway, since total cholesterol levels are obviously influenced by diet, it worries me that when we eat like hunter gatherers supposedly eat our cholesterol levels don't drop to these super low levels. Are we seriously defficient in micronutrients? Do we exercise way less than they do? Does their diet have a different fat profile than what we have assumed?

Mirrorball why do you assume that low cholesterol is good and high is bad?

What if cholesterol levels reflect diet and activity but don't dictate health?

See my first post: "Considering that the average Paleo dieter has high blood cholesterol [..] and regardless of the impact or lack of impact of high total cholesterol on health, don't the above data make anyone wonder if we are doing it wrong? If we were actually eating like a hunter gatherer, shouldn't we have low total cholesterol numbers?"

If cholesterol levels reflect diet and activity, and we have high cholesterol levels and hunter gatherers have low cholesterol levels, it means that our diets and activity levels are very different from a hunter gatherer's and we are only fooling ourselves when we say we 'eat like cavemen'.

Ok, I think I see what you were getting at. You were saying we were not equal to hunter gatherers? When my question was more, what if we are not equal and we're still ok.

Or our activity levels are different and we eat like cavemen and if they moved like us they would have cholesterol like us. Never mind! my brain is fried, it's the end of the day here.

I hope so, but I'm worried that we aren't okay.

I wonder if this is like Vitamin D and runner. Runners have lower Vitamin D levels than the non-running population. Popular wisdom says it's because they use more sunscreen, but I think it's just because they use their reserves repairing from running. Bones get broken down and built up. With hunter gatherers I wonder if they are just using the cholesterol for cell repair at higher rates due to the strenuous nature of their lives. Still means cholesterol is harmless, we just keep more in reserve. Don't know much about biology, though....

Those numbers actually look dangerously low to me - people with numbers that low in the MRFIT study, for example, had dramatically elevated risks of death from cancer and violence.

I doubt they are unhealthy for the people under consideration, though- more likely their bodies are in balance with "numbers" that we aren't even measuring. In that sense a Paleo eater with a TC of 300 may have more in common with an Inuit with TC of 140 than a SAD eater with with the same TC as either one.

I would not be at all surprised, though, if higher intakes of DHA, Vitamin A, K2 and D had something to do with the difference between HGs and Paleos in industrial society.

On the other hand, maybe they really are less healthy than we are, at least in some ways. A couple of the groups mentioned do eat pretty low-fat and low-calorie, if I remember correctly - their environment just does not provide the amount of fat that we have available. I seem to recall that Eaton and Konner are fond of claiming that Paleolithic humans ate low-fat and high-carb, so maybe there's even some bias here.

I think that capmikee makes a good point, modern hunter-gatherers are extremely marginalised populations, so not maybe the perfect examples of paleo nutrition.

We need to be wary of re-enactment, yes these people have very low total cholesterol, but when we carry out more detailed studies on western populations, cholesterol as low as that is associated with all sort of ills such as depression and cancer.

I'm still voting for genetic component from the previous two hundred or so generations as the most likely cause. I also think that replicating or trying to replicate those levels will be injurious to our health.

Good point capmikee. Dr. John Briffa has a post on the subject of low cholesterol posted just today July 22, 2010 titled "Low cholesterol levels associated with depression and other mental health issues".

That's low cholesterol in a population of SAD eaters. I think comparing the two groups is apples and oranges. There's so many difference it's hard to pick it apart.