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?
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.
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 --
I'm not too worried about it.
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.
What is biologically normal? 6 Answers
Paleo dieters and high LDL-p numbers? 5 Answers
what's the best defense against NAD/SAD? 0 Answers