Jump to content

Cholesterol Question


Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

This may be an odd question: My cholesterol is 117. I have been vegan for nearly one year. Prior to that, my cholesterol hovered between 150 and 180. I spoke to a nutritionist recently and he told me that that figure (117) is quite low. He tells me that cholesterol is essential for brain function, muscle function, etc. After reading, The China Study by Dr. T. Colin Campbell he discusses cholesterol at quite length. He says that in many non Western countries (i.e. "diets"), cholesterol levels are even lower than mine. I workout quite often (run, weight lift, tennis, blading, etc. Could anyone be so kind and share some insights into this? Does anyone have an identical problem? The health practitioner says that if it doesn't increase, it can be fortified to increase the cholesterol with supplements.

Any help/input is appreciated.

 

Take Care and Thanks--Patrick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are good and bad types of cholesterol and they must be kept within a certain ratio. HDL is the good kind and LDL is the bad kind. I haven't heard of someone having too low of a total cholesterol. I have heard professionals talk of total cholesterol levels lower than yours as if they are healthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always like the Mayo Clinic's descriptions of health issues.

 

From http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cholesterol-level/AN01394

 

"A high blood cholesterol level puts you at increased risk of coronary artery disease. So lower is usually better — but not always.

 

Some research suggests that very low cholesterol levels may be associated with an increased risk of death in people with cancer. However, there is no evidence that a low cholesterol level causes cancer. Low cholesterol levels may also be associated with depression and anxiety. Some scientists believe that very low cholesterol may reduce serotonin levels in the brain.

 

So, how low is "too low"? It depends on the individual. A newborn has a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level of 30 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) and develops normally at this level. People who eat low-fat, low-cholesterol diets may have an LDL cholesterol level between 40 and 50 mg/dL and a total cholesterol level of 100 mg/dL — and they do just fine.

 

In general, you want your total cholesterol level to be less than 200 mg/dL and your LDL cholesterol level to be below 100 mg/dL. For individuals at very high risk of heart disease, the National Cholesterol Education Program recommends an LDL cholesterol level of about 70 mg/dL and a total cholesterol level between 140 and 150 mg/dL. Some research suggests that LDL cholesterol levels between 60 and 70 mg/dL are not only safe but can help slow or even reverse coronary artery disease.

 

If you have questions about your cholesterol levels, consult your doctor. He or she can explain what cholesterol levels are appropriate in your specific situation."

 

A nice follow up on the link to depression and anxiety

From http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QA/QA43423/

 

"Two more recent studies from the Max-Planck-Institute of Psychiatry in Germany linked low cholesterol with an increased risk of suicide, depression, impulsivity and aggression. Here, researchers speculated that a decreased consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids, especially omega-3s may be a risk factor and that increasing intake of foods high in omega-3 fatty acids might lower the risk."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My cholesterol was actually 116 before I went vegan(last time I had it checked I was maybe 16) which really pissed my brother off who was 40point higher yet 100lbs lighter. Anyway don't bother. Your body makes more than enough and you don't need to take any more through diet. Testosterone is something you could take too(since they are both steriods/hormones made by the body) and you would get stronger but that doesn't mean you need it.

 

My old diet contained tons of calories and in terms of ratios I probably at less meat than most americans but the amount I ate total meant I ate more meat than most even though it really wasn't a huge part of my diet in relative terms. If my cholesterol was that low I'm assuming its much lower now and my brain activity is terribly slow...the same way it was when I was eating lots of cholesterol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

High cholesterol is just one indication that something is wrong. Belly fat for example is a better indication of heart disease risk. Cholesterol and blood pressure are easy to measure and there are pills against them so we tend to focus on those.

As cholesterol values went down in rural China, so did the other markers of disease, like obesity, heart disease, diabetes and others. Exactly which role cholesterol plays in all these diseases is not exactly known. No dangerous diseases seemed to pop up because of low cholesterol (except maybe malnutrition from poverty).

There are many types of proteins that carry cholesterol (since it is insoluble in blood). LDL and HDL are two of those. LDL takes the cholesterol out to the body and HDL takes it back to the liver.

The main focus shold be put on your LDL. It should be below 100 and even better below 80. When LDL is in this range the HDL values doesn't seem to matter. It's when LDL is high that HDL needs to be high too. Again, in rural China (and other places who eats mostly plants) HDL is very low and yet heart disease is very uncommon.

 

When your doctor blabbers out stuff like this ask him where he gets his information so that you can read up on your own and apparently dangerous disease. He will probably give you nothing to read since he goes on his own gut feeling which is probably biased. Remember, having a low cholesterol is very unusual in the western world so he might just be scared for your health.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

116 is too low, Low ( and high in bad cholesterol composed of damaged polyunsatureated fats ) cholesterol level has been linked to stroke , depression and cancer . Why cancer ? Because Cholesterol is composed of mainly the anti-cancer polyunsaturated fats (if it's not damaged ) and your body needs cholesterol for conversion to VITAMIN D (Another Anti cancer nutrient ) Via sunshine.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/HEALTH/9902/06/strokes/

 

http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/

 

[P]erhaps the biggest bombshell about vitamin D's effects is about to go off. In June, U.S. researchers will announce the first direct link between cancer prevention and the sunshine vitamin. Their results are nothing short of astounding...those taking the vitamin had about a 60 percent reduction in cancer incidence, compared with those who didn't take it, a drop so large—twice the impact on cancer attributed to smoking—it almost looks like a typographical error.

 

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Vitamin-D.html

 

 

One of cholesterol's many functions in the body is to act as a precursor to vitamin D.

I would recommend that you see a doc to find out the cause of Low Cholesterol . ( Eg : Dyfunctional Gallbladder and etc )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's unfortunate to be a human being, isn't it. We're forced to eat stuff that kills us to be able to stay alive.

The best way to get your cholesterol up is of course to eat lots of hydrogenized fat. So I guess that's good for you...

As I said cholesterol is just one marker that something is wrong, there are multiple others.

The stroke thing is partly true. The fatty plaques in your vessels protect you from hemorrhagic stroke (responsible for about 5% of all strokes) when your blood pressure is elevated. So either you get your blood pressure down or you eat stuff that gives you the mor common kind of stroke (ischemic stroke).

Trust me, we don't know enough about neither diet nor the central nervous system to be able to link cholesterol to depression. We do know that alot of the stuff that that raises your cholesterol makes you feel good for the moment, that's why most people eat it.

Polyunsatyrated fatty acids oxidize in the body (i.e. binds oxygen from the cells) which I thought you said was not a good thing. You don't get rid of cancer by drinking a gallon of fish oil every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polyunsatyrated fatty acids oxidize in the body

 

That 's what a functional PURA supposed to do, Absorp oxygen/get oxidized and provide the energy that your body needs. It's unfortunate that oxygen gives us life but also oxidize/age our cells via the production of free radical . This is the nature of life . That's where the antioxidant /free radical scavengers offered by vege, fruits and animal organs come into rescue.

 

If you want PURA that does not oxidize, Pick a margarine or trans fats. There will not go rancid or oxidized under exposure of heat and light for years. There are guarantee to "boost" your cholesterol level with the formation of inflammation on the arteries. .

 

Cholesterol is not the cause of heart disease but rather a potent antioxidant weapon against free radicals in the blood, and a repair substance that helps heal arterial damage (although the arterial plaques themselves contain very little cholesterol.) However, like fats, cholesterol may be damaged by exposure to heat and oxygen. This damaged or oxidized cholesterol seems to promote both injury to the arterial cells as well as a pathological buildup of plaque in the arteries.50 Damaged cholesterol is found in powdered eggs, in powdered milk (added to reduced-fat milks to give them body) and in meats and fats that have been heated to high temperatures in frying and other high-temperature processes.
Weston price Foundation

 

 

EFAs absorb sunlight and keep membranes fluid. Their tendency to disperse gives biological systems the power to carry substances such as toxins to the surface of the skin, intestinal tract, kidneys, or lungs, where these substances can be discarded.

 

EFAs are involved in producing life energy in our body from food substances, and moving that energy throughout our systems. They govern growth, vitality, and mental state. They hook up oxygen, electron transport, and energy in the process of oxidation. Oxidation, the central and most important moment-to-moment living process in our body, is the 'burning' of food to produce the energy required for life processes.

 

EFAs are involved in the transporting of oxygen to all our cells. EFAs can be likened to oxygen 'magnets' that pull oxygen into our body. Linoleic Acid and Linolenic Acid appear to hold oxygen in our cell membranes, where it acts as a barrier to viruses, fungi and bacteria.

 

EFAs substantially shorten the time required for fatigued muscles to recover after exercise. They facilitate the conversion of lactic acid to water and carbon dioxide. This is especially important to athletes.

 

EFAs increase metabolic rates. They increase the metabolic rate and burn more fat into carbon dioxide, water and energy sometimes resulting in weight loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know about mercola and weston price as I think most people in here do. I do think it's educatonal to see how they get to their standpoint so that I don't make the same mistakes myself.

Medical science is tricky, there is a huge amount of traps to fall into and one always have to be on ones toes.

Two of the most common mistakes seems to be:

 

1. The person claims something and found 15 studies to back his position up. Most people will fall for it especially if the person is a good sales person (like mercola). The mistake is to disregard from all the other studies (which might be thousands). This way you can convince people that anything is good for them. The tobacco industry has used this method as have Atkins, mercola and weston price. People swallow it hook and bait.

 

2. Claiming something and then letting others disprove it. If they don't succeed than the statement must be right. This one is all over the place when it comes to health. The enzyme theory is one good example of this. It might be true, but then again it might not be. To disprove it someone have to raise money to refute a claim that someone else have done. When they disprove it, the person will come up with something new. There aren't enough money in the world to keep this race up. In medical science, if you have a theory, you back it up with studies. That's how we know the stuff we do today, not by making shit up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know about mercola and weston price as I think most people in here do. I do think it's educatonal to see how they get to their standpoint so that I don't make the same mistakes myself.

Medical science is tricky, there is a huge amount of traps to fall into and one always have to be on ones toes.

Two of the most common mistakes seems to be:

 

1. The person claims something and found 15 studies to back his position up. Most people will fall for it especially if the person is a good sales person (like mercola). The mistake is to disregard from all the other studies (which might be thousands). This way you can convince people that anything is good for them. The tobacco industry has used this method as have Atkins, mercola and weston price. People swallow it hook and bait.

 

2. Claiming something and then letting others disprove it. If they don't succeed than the statement must be right. This one is all over the place when it comes to health. The enzyme theory is one good example of this. It might be true, but then again it might not be. To disprove it someone have to raise money to refute a claim that someone else have done. When they disprove it, the person will come up with something new. There aren't enough money in the world to keep this race up. In medical science, if you have a theory, you back it up with studies. That's how we know the stuff we do today, not by making shit up.

 

 

Offense, I'm glad you have the energy to type out some replies that actually make sense!

I've refrained from posting in several threads around here lately, because by the time I read them they're so full of crap (mostly due to one apparently batshiat crazy poster) it's not even worth trying to enter the discusion. Just wanted to say I appreciate someone bringing some logic to the table!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know about mercola and weston price as I think most people in here do. I do think it's educatonal to see how they get to their standpoint so that I don't make the same mistakes myself.

Medical science is tricky, there is a huge amount of traps to fall into and one always have to be on ones toes.

Two of the most common mistakes seems to be:

 

1. The person claims something and found 15 studies to back his position up. Most people will fall for it especially if the person is a good sales person (like mercola). The mistake is to disregard from all the other studies (which might be thousands). This way you can convince people that anything is good for them. The tobacco industry has used this method as have Atkins, mercola and weston price. People swallow it hook and bait.

 

2. Claiming something and then letting others disprove it. If they don't succeed than the statement must be right. This one is all over the place when it comes to health. The enzyme theory is one good example of this. It might be true, but then again it might not be. To disprove it someone have to raise money to refute a claim that someone else have done. When they disprove it, the person will come up with something new. There aren't enough money in the world to keep this race up. In medical science, if you have a theory, you back it up with studies. That's how we know the stuff we do today, not by making shit up.

 

 

Offense, I'm glad you have the energy to type out some replies that actually make sense!

I've refrained from posting in several threads around here lately, because by the time I read them they're so full of crap (mostly due to one apparently batshiat crazy poster) it's not even worth trying to enter the discusion. Just wanted to say I appreciate someone bringing some logic to the table!

Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of Quakery related articles agaist vegetarian, so what's the point of bringing up Quackwatch here ..... ?

 

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/vegan.html

 

Vegetarianism has taken on a "political correctness" comparable to the respectability it had in the last century, when many social and scientific progressives advocated it. Today, crusaders extol meatless eating not only as healthful but also as a solution to world hunger and as a safeguard of "Mother Earth." The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) aggressively attacks the use of animal foods and has proposed its own food-groups model, which excludes all animal products. Several scientific conferences have focused on vegetarian health. And nutrition policymakers have urgently recommended that people eat more fruits and vegetables.

 

I disclaimed vegetarianism after many years of observance. Although the arguments in favor of it appear compelling, I have learned to be suspicious, and to search for hidden agendas, when I evaluate claims of the benefits of vegetarianism. Vegetarianism is riddled with delusional thinking from which even scientists and medical professionals are not immune.

 

 

Let's run through some other examples of ideologic vegetarian extremism:

 

It caused mental and growth retardation in two boys underfed from birth to ages 3 and 5. Their mother had become a vegetarian, later eliminated sugar and dairy products from her diet, and eventually adopted a macrobiotic diet [4].

Ten cases of nutritional rickets were reported among infants (most of whom were breast-fed) of strict-vegetarian mothers who had not sought medical counsel during pregnancy but had obtained advice from health food stores [5].

Scurvy and rickets occurred in two boys, 1-1/2 and 2-1/2 years old, whose parents were adherents of the Zen Macrobiotic diet [6].

A 36-year-old former college professor who was a follower of the Temple Beautiful diet died of malnutrition attempting to become a "breatharian"—one who supposedly feeds on air alone. First he became a vegetarian, then a fruitarian, then a "liquidarian" (consuming juices only), and finally, a would-be breatharian [7].

A 2-month-old boy died because his mother, following the invalid recommendation for colic in Adelle Davis's Let's Have Healthy Children, overdosed him with potassium [8]. In a television interview, the mother said that, as she became increasingly estranged toward conventional medicine, she had adopted vegetarianism and then veganism.

A 24-year-old woman who was head of San Jose State University's student art program died after taking an extract of pennyroyal to induce an abortion. She was described as "a strict vegetarian who was involved in holistic medicine.'' [9]

A review of the literature includes more reports of cases in which vegetarian zealotry played a role in harm to a child [10].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, someone over at quackwatch found some vegans that are clearly idiots. Are veggies and fruit the cause of their stupidity or what are you trying to say?

Also the first quote doesn't actually refute any of the claims it seems to dislike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...