From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed May 07 2003 - 07:49:48 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> Point 2 goes on to say that "all fats raise HDL" as if this
> were a good thing. I submit that this "ratio" isn't improved
> unless LDLs are lowered at the same time.
Why do you say this? Certainly it is better to see LDL drop while HDL rises,
but I would not dismiss as meaningless an improvement in the ratio due only
to a rise in HDL.
I would say that as long as total cholesterol does not rise significantly
above ~200, any increase in HDL/LDL is a good thing even if LDL does not
decline. Studies show that the risk of heart disease is inversely related to
plasma HDL.
A few days ago I posted an abstract here about the adverse effects on mood
that occur when switching from a high-fat to a low-fat diet. I did not
mention it at the time, but the statistics in that abstract show also a
significant reduction in HDL from the low-fat diet, *without* a
corresponding reduction in LDL or total cholesterol. Here is the relevant
excerpt:
"There was a decline in fasting concentrations of HDL-cholesterol after the
low-fat diet and a small increase in subjects consuming the medium-fat diet
(group F 4.96; df 1.12; P = 0.046), but no significant changes in
concentrations of total serum cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol or
triacylglycerol were observed."
I remain convinced that extremely low-fat diets are unhealthy.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 07 2003 - 07:59:24 MDT