Ad Widget

Collapse

Had heart attack on Sunday 22nd

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ToldUzo View Post
    Vitamin K2 from natto for instance and vitamin K1 from greens are not the same:
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...min-k1-k2.aspx
    Thanks ToldUzo!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by breadsauce View Post
      Here we are

      https://www.bhf.org.uk/heart-health/...gh-cholesterol

      Advises having less than 4 mol/l .Which seems low to me! Not so long ago, the advice was to aim to have less than 7 mol/l. Who is lowering the targets? I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were the manufacturers of statins ...
      Wow thanks! Mine's still around 4.7, maybe I should try lower it more... Aside from removing my boiled egg yolk and boiled seving of meat each day though, I don't know how. That's basically saying everyone needs to go vegan or take drugs.

      Comment


      • That's basically saying everyone needs to go vegan or take drugs.
        Now you've reached the heart of it.
        Finally have given up on MDA Forum.
        My friends, I'll see ya at primalforums.com where I'm user #4, and we do have a moderator.

        Comment


        • I looked at this (highly unreliable site) which said that below 5 was for "normal people" whilst below 4 was for "high risk people"

          That certainly makes a lot more sense.

          http://www.floraproactiv.co.uk/artic...esterol-levels

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Eoin Kenny View Post
            Wow thanks! Mine's still around 4.7, maybe I should try lower it more... Aside from removing my boiled egg yolk and boiled seving of meat each day though, I don't know how. That's basically saying everyone needs to go vegan or take drugs.
            You only need to lower it more if you actually believe the recommended figures. I don't - I'd like to know what the "average" cholesterol levels have been historically, what they tend to be in various other cultures / societies, and WHO is suggesting getting them so very low anyway.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by breadsauce View Post
              You only need to lower it more if you actually believe the recommended figures. I don't - I'd like to know what the "average" cholesterol levels have been historically, what they tend to be in various other cultures / societies, and WHO is suggesting getting them so very low anyway.
              I don't know either, but I've heard that below 150 is what the average hunter gather would have/has have.

              http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/99/1/164b.full

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Eoin Kenny View Post
                I don't know either, but I've heard that below 150 is what the average hunter gather would have/has have.

                http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/99/1/164b.full
                That link is a very brief correspondence piece.

                Here is a bit better info in this regard. http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/07...ter-gatherers/

                Cholesterol is still a poor marker. Low levels can indicate parasitic infection, disease, and a short life expectancy or just stale samples not tested in a timely manner. Not really the part of the primitive diet I'd want to emulate. Its the unhealthy, malnourished tribes with low life expectancy that are most frequent associated with these super low cholesterol numbers.
                Last edited by Neckhammer; 04-26-2016, 09:27 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                  That link is a very brief correspondence piece.

                  Here is a bit better info in this regard. http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/07...ter-gatherers/

                  Cholesterol is still a poor marker. Low levels can indicate parasitic infection, disease, and a short life expectancy or just stale samples not tested in a timely manner. Not really the part of the primitive diet I'd want to emulate. Its the unhealthy, malnourished tribes with low life expectancy that are most frequent associated with these super low cholesterol numbers.
                  Thanks for the link! I'd be pretty hesitant to buy into it though honestly, that guy is heavily biased towards the "hunter gatherer" romantic view. He's also financially invested in it.

                  Good point that low cholesterol can also mean bad things, so it's definitely not 100% reliable. I do think though that that's a rarity and that super low cholesterol (less than 150) is not really associated with heart disease? Provided that a primal man who was mostly vegan was getting proper nourishment with his diet I'd say (given the evidence) that he'd be likely to be quite healthy.

                  Not trolling or anything, just my two cents.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                    That link is a very brief correspondence piece.

                    Here is a bit better info in this regard. http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/07...ter-gatherers/

                    Cholesterol is still a poor marker. Low levels can indicate parasitic infection, disease, and a short life expectancy or just stale samples not tested in a timely manner. Not really the part of the primitive diet I'd want to emulate. Its the unhealthy, malnourished tribes with low life expectancy that are most frequent associated with these super low cholesterol numbers.
                    Thanks for that link - very interesting. I am suspicious of super low cholesterol levels and the use of drugs to achieve this. I don't know what the optimum level is, but personally, I'd be happy with 5 / 5.5 mmol/l

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Eoin Kenny View Post
                      Thanks for the link! I'd be pretty hesitant to buy into it though honestly, that guy is heavily biased towards the "hunter gatherer" romantic view. He's also financially invested in it.
                      I agree that financial investment is a consideration....but the knife cuts both ways. Much research and even the correspondence piece you posted are heavily financially invested in showing a very low cholesterol to be healthy.

                      All in all let the logic and science take front seat and I think it is obvious that the post by PHD website has much merrit. Sub 150 TC is more detrimental than not. That's based on my own assessments and study.....psychological disorders, infectious disease, parasites, and cancer all higher when you look at population with such low cholesterol. I just posted the blog reference as it directly related to the current conversation.

                      https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2012/0...-cause-cancer/

                      Originally posted by Eoin Kenny View Post
                      Good point that low cholesterol can also mean bad things, so it's definitely not 100% reliable. I do think though that that's a rarity and that super low cholesterol (less than 150) is not really associated with heart disease? Provided that a primal man who was mostly vegan was getting proper nourishment with his diet I'd say (given the evidence) that he'd be likely to be quite healthy.
                      No, it's not associated with heart disease. What it is associated with is a higher rate of all cause mortality. I.e. You don't die of a heart attack, but you are still dead.
                      Not sure where you get your info on primal man either??? Perhaps you went back a bit too far on the old evolutionary time scale. I'm not interested in going back so far as to where it's questionable that we where even human yet. Hunter gatherers who where actually healthy in these past couple hundred years subsisted on a good portion of meat in their diets.
                      Last edited by Neckhammer; 04-27-2016, 05:12 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by breadsauce View Post
                        Thanks for that link - very interesting. I am suspicious of super low cholesterol levels and the use of drugs to achieve this. I don't know what the optimum level is, but personally, I'd be happy with 5 / 5.5 mmol/l
                        Yeah, I'm not stating that sky high is a great data point to be at either. Just obvious to me that "lower lower lower!" Is not as great a mantra as some would have you believe.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                          Not sure where you get your info on primal man either??? Perhaps you went back a bit too far on the old evolutionary time scale. I'm not interested in going back so far as to where it's questionable that we where even human yet. Hunter gatherers who where actually healthy in these past couple hundred years subsisted on a good portion of meat in their diets.
                          To be honest with you, I have zero interest in modeling my diet off of Paleo man. I only care about modeling it off of what looks to be healthy in modern diets and modern science.

                          To be honest (don't mean to commit blasphemy on this site) the more diets I play around with, the more I think that the food pyramid was right all along. Wholegrains/tubers, vegetables, fruit, then lean meats, eggs and legumes, then nuts/seeds. That's it really, everything you need and likely in the right order to boot. Also avoid frying because it really needs fats which are all processed anyway, plus the high temperatures seem to promote bad things. Am I still one of the few who boils everything these days?

                          Comment


                          • Boiling was reportedly the primary cooking method of the traditional Inuit, Maasai and Irish. That and crockpot cooking are my most common current methods.


                            Sent from my iPod touch using Marks Daily Apple Forum
                            Originally posted by tatertot
                            Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong.
                            "our ancestors obtained resistant starch and other fermentable fibers by eating a diversity of wild plant foods, bulbs, corms, tubers, cattails, cactuses, and medicinal barks..." -Mark Sisson

                            "I've long ago tossed the idea that a particular macro ratio is poison, and am now starting to think that the EM2…is defined less by novel NADS…and more by the gut microbiome and environmental pseudocommensals ..." -Kurt Harris, MD

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Paleophil View Post
                              Boiling was reportedly the primary cooking method of the traditional Inuit, Maasai and Irish. That and crockpot cooking are my most common current methods.


                              Sent from my iPod touch using Marks Daily Apple Forum
                              I most often cook over an open fire....I.e. BBQ. Either sear quickly or low and slow for several hours. I then refrigerate several pounds of meat and use it throughout the week in various dishes. Cooking over an open fire is reported in a few traditional societies

                              Boiling just sooooo sucks all the flavor and joy out of food unless you are using that water in the stew you are making.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Eoin Kenny View Post
                                To be honest with you, I have zero interest in modeling my diet off of Paleo man. I only care about modeling it off of what looks to be healthy in modern diets and modern science.
                                Ummm...you brang up "primal man" being vegan. I simply corrected some of what you stated with modern science so you should be happy all round

                                Originally posted by Eoin Kenny View Post
                                To be honest (don't mean to commit blasphemy on this site) the more diets I play around with, the more I think that the food pyramid was right all along. Wholegrains/tubers, vegetables, fruit, then lean meats, eggs and legumes, then nuts/seeds. That's it really, everything you need and likely in the right order to boot. Also avoid frying because it really needs fats which are all processed anyway, plus the high temperatures seem to promote bad things. Am I still one of the few who boils everything these days?
                                Nothing's blasphempus....simply doesn't follow the evidence. Wanna follow the food pyramid? Have at it. I wouldn't tell anyone who I wanted to live a healthy happy life to do it though. Again based on modern science and population studies.

                                Boiling.....only for bone broth and stew. Open fire for all else.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X