From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri May 09 2003 - 10:44:02 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> Good catch! To be more clear, I should have said "unless
> LDLs are lowered or at least not raised."
I'm glad it was an oversight!
>> 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.
>
> I agree with the first part. Raising HDL while keeping LDL
> the same does improve the ratio. This is good. But I think
> the second part is oversimplified. Raising HDL is not
> necessarily good by itself. If LDL is not kept even, but
> increases as well, then the ratio is not improved. I think
> this would be worse (or at least no improvement). LDLs tend
> to build up on artery walls, while HDLs tend to remove this
> buildup. I am not sure if increasing both the buildup and
> the cleanup equally is a net wash or loses something in the
> inefficiency or requirement of extra repair work.
I don't see where you are disagreeing with anything I wrote above, or why
you believe that
anything I wrote was "oversimplified."
You wrote "But I think the second part is oversimplified. Raising HDL is not
necessarily good
by itself. If LDL is not kept even, but increases as well, then the ratio is
not improved."
But that statement has exactly the same meaning as mine: "any increase in
HDL/LDL is a good
thing even if LDL does not decline." Maybe you didn't realize that I was
referring to HDL/LDL
as a ratio.
I added a caveat: that total cholesterol should not be allowed rise
significantly above
~200. I can't say for sure that a rise above ~200 is unhealthy when the rise
comes only from a rise in the healthy HDL component of cholesterol, but I
would not bet my life that it's healthy. As far as I know there is not
enough data about the benefits of HDL to think extremely high HDL sufficient
to push total cholesterol significantly above 200 is healthy.
>> I remain convinced that extremely low-fat diets are unhealthy.
>
> I totally agree.
I worry though that many vegetarian diets are too low in fat. The low-fat
diet described in that abstract which showed a negative effect on HDL was
still something like 24% of calories from fat. That seems to be within range
of the typical vegetarian diet.
> I think the only place where we would disagree on fats is
> that I believe in a certain ratio of fats which prefers
> essential fatty acids > monounsaturated > polyunsaturated >
> saturated > hydrogenised. I am not sure if you have no
> preference between different kinds of fats, or if you prefer
> the reverse order than I do.
I certainly don't prefer a reverse order! In fact I strive to avoid
hydrogenised fats altogether.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 09 2003 - 10:54:46 MDT