Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

7

Since Boyd Eaton et al, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0002934388901131 following by Cordain it is well known that hunter gatherers typically have or had total cholesterol in the range of 120 to 160. Current paleo followers presumably follow a diet that is intended to be as close to the one of h-g as possible, for people who lives in the Western World. Nevertheless many modern paleo eaters usually have t.c from two to three times as large as the one of h-g. I am not arguing whether high cholesterol is good, bad, or irrelevant. My question is why would it be that the numbers are so much different?

edited Aug 23 2011 at 18:38

asked Aug 23 2011 at 18:25

Philosopher
4,694●13●31

7

I think we mostly hear about the people with higher cholesterol on Paleo. My cholesterol numbers are in the range you specified, but I don't really ever have any reason to talk about them. – sherpamelissa Aug 23 2011 at 18:28

1

Maybe it's just the Melissa's? – sherpamelissa Aug 23 2011 at 18:51

1

Nope; the Roses too. – Rose Aug 23 2011 at 18:52

1

I don't have high cholesterol either. Perhaps the difference is based on the fact that many people coming to paleo are more significantly damaged by their previous diets/lifestyles? – Katie Aug 23 2011 at 19:02

3

Japsican has a great cholesterol profile. I have no idea why I referred to myself in the 3rd person. – The Japsican Aug 23 2011 at 23:12

show 7 more comments

Travis Culp · Answer 1 · 2011-08-23 19:09:35Z UTC

11

You might want to take a look at Paul Jaminet's series about that very question: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?p=3919

Really though, it's not "fat" that raises cholesterol out of normal ranges, it's specific fatty acids (myristic, palmitic and lauric acids in that order). If you don't eat any dairy fat, your cholesterol will likely be significantly lower than someone who eats a lot of butter. It also depends on how much vitamin D/steroid hormones you may be manufacturing etc. 200 to 240mg/dL seems to be the sweet spot.

edited Aug 23 2011 at 19:09

answered Aug 23 2011 at 18:38

Travis Culp♦
39.6k●1●32●132

1

Agreed. 'We aren't infested by parasites' may be an answer. – David Moss Aug 23 2011 at 18:56

I will take a look, thanks. Also Stafan Lindeberg in "Food and Western Disease" shows (chapter 4.8) a large body of evidence pointing to the very low levels of tc prevalent among h-g – Philosopher Aug 23 2011 at 19:10

1

I'll link to Travis's main post on this so he doesn't have to: paleohacks.com/questions/36855/… – Paul Aug 23 2011 at 20:50

Do you have more info on those specific fatty acids raising cholesterol? What is the mechanism? – wmertens Aug 23 2011 at 22:17

Ambimorph · Answer 2 · 2011-08-23 22:32:09Z UTC

4

My total cholesterol last measured at 246, which is slightly above the low part of this graph, which I found on Ned Kock's site. Because my ratios are excellent --

trig 38 (35-135)
HDL 94 (40-80) high

ratios

chol/HDL risk 0.4 (0.2-1.0)
LDL/HDL risk 0.5 (0.2-1.0)
chol/HDL 2.62 (1.00-4.44)
LDL/HDL 1.54 (1.00-3.22)

I'm not too worried about it.

Cholesterol-mortality u-curve

answered Aug 23 2011 at 22:32

Ambimorph
19.6k●18●66

I love this chart. And it makes me wish I had higher TC, lol. – Rose Aug 23 2011 at 23:42

1

Your answer is well off the mark. First of all I did not question whether cholesterol is good or bad, just why is it that many modern paleos hav high tc as opposed to h-g. On the other the chart you show is useless from a scientific perspective: if for instance tc is lower in poorer countries where infectious disease are more prevalent because people do not have access to modern medicine you CAN NOT conclude that lower tc causes more infectious diseases. You have the typical problem of causation versus correlation here – Philosopher Aug 24 2011 at 3:28

No it doesn't answer the question, but it's a great way to convey mind-numbing data. I see Japan and France are on the bottom for CV risk. Maybe it's a manifestation of the cigarette paradox.... – thhq Aug 24 2011 at 10:25

1

I didn't assert causation anywhere! And though I know it doesn't answer the question directly, I just thought it was relevant to the subject. – Ambimorph Aug 24 2011 at 13:36

Kikilula · Answer 3 · 2011-08-24 07:48:08Z UTC

2

High cholesterol numbers may well be a sign of a recovering fatty liver - and transitional.

("Leben ohne Brot" by Dr. Wolfgang Lutz)

answered Aug 24 2011 at 7:48

Kikilula
2,219●4●13

George Brodie · Answer 4 · 2011-08-24 00:23:27Z UTC

1

We don't walk everwhere all the time as the only form of travel, we don't climb (high frequency), sprint after prey, fast for starving periods of time (days), we have control of when and where we eat, even though oils are considered Paleo andcestors just ate raw or fire charred meat on a stick. Could be some possible causes to lower cholesterol.

answered Aug 24 2011 at 0:23

George Brodie
169●2

1

All this will make for higher HDL, but I haven't personally seen that it drives LDL down. I'd lean towards type and amount of fat consumed as being more causal of high total cholesterol in modern paleos. – thhq Aug 24 2011 at 10:32

Why is it that “modern paleos” often have very high total cholesterol unlike hunter gatherers?

4 Answers