Guest guest Posted June 12, 2003 Report Share Posted June 12, 2003 Hi board, I know this info has probably been covered, but i did a search and it was not readily appearing. I'm totally NT, and not worried about anything, just want to get a sense of: - the party line. The blood test i got was saying over 200 considered 'bad.' LDL considered 'high' if over 129. HDLs are ideally over 40. - the NT perspective on these ranges including the difference between HDL and LDL. Many years ago when i was vegetarian (and drinking a lot of milk) and getting holes in my teeth and very fatigued, my total cholesterol was something like 140. Doctors were happy. Now of course I feel much more healthy but test was 239 (162 LDL, 55 HDL). And the advice nurse is telling me to use olive oil blah blah blah. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 > > > I know that NT perspective is that cholesterol is not the villian > > everyone thinks , but surely there must be some numbers. Ie 150 is > > too low, 350 is too high. I'm just curious. > > > > Thanks, > > > At the Wise Traditions conference in VA there were several cardiologist speakers (which tells you right there, who's taking NT seriously). I missed Dr. Langsjoen's talk (simultaneous with other talks) but have his card, he's an MD and the card says 'cardiovascular diseases'. 3 people who went to his talk told me he said there is no 'correct' cholesterol level, and measuring cholesterol is not even worthwhile. This indiciates to me that cholesterol is a matter of biochemical individuality -- that is, the cholesterol level varies greatly by individual. I realize that's not much comfort to your loved ones, and insurance companies. (At least being a woman I can point to Ravnskov's chart showing high cholesterol correllates with longer life in women and elderly. When you're elderly -- you can do that too. Of course I still get billed higher on my life insurance for having 'slightly elevated' cholesterol (they wouldn't even tell me what it is, I'd have to see my dr. which is a waste of money). Maybe check out the book " Biochemical Individuality " by the late , who lived to 92 and was actually respected by the medical establishment. I have it, but have only skimmed it. What I gleaned is, he has lots of evidence to support his theory, that levels of many compounds in us vary greatly by each individual. By the way I was reading another book by called " Nutrition Against Disease " and *he* made the point that cholesterol does not cause heart disease -- this was in the 1970's. daphne b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 I too have been trying to raise my cholesterol levels. And have only raised it by ten -15 points or so (from a starting low 121) Elainie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 Hi, Great, thanks for this info. It is helpful. I definitely feel MUCH more healthy with cholesterol of 240 compared to 140. In terms of raising it, eat what you like, but i believe beef tongue has the most cholesterol. Probably brains are high too. Tongue is really tasty and it is part of the classic bollito misto (Italian for mixed boil). Cheers, > > > At the Wise Traditions conference in VA there were several > cardiologist speakers (which tells you right there, who's taking NT > seriously). I missed Dr. Langsjoen's talk (simultaneous with other > talks) but have his card, he's an MD and the card says 'cardiovascular > diseases'. 3 people who went to his talk told me he said there is no > 'correct' cholesterol level, and measuring cholesterol is not even > worthwhile. This indiciates to me that cholesterol is a matter of > biochemical individuality -- that is, the cholesterol level varies > greatly by individual. I realize that's not much comfort to your > loved ones, and insurance companies. (At least being a woman I can > point to Ravnskov's chart showing high cholesterol correllates with > longer life in women and elderly. When you're elderly -- you can do > that too. Of course I still get billed higher on my life insurance > for having 'slightly elevated' cholesterol (they wouldn't even tell me > what it is, I'd have to see my dr. which is a waste of money). > > Maybe check out the book " Biochemical Individuality " by the late > , who lived to 92 and was actually respected by the medical > establishment. I have it, but have only skimmed it. What I gleaned is, > he has lots of evidence to support his theory, that levels of many > compounds in us vary greatly by each individual. By the way I was > reading another book by called " Nutrition Against Disease " > and *he* made the point that cholesterol does not cause heart disease > -- this was in the 1970's. > > daphne b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 I want to recommend, " The Cholesterol Conspiracy " by . I've also read " The Cholesterol Myths " and both are really great, but I just found this one more interesting and easier to relate to. provides a lot more data albeit more than most people want to read. He also has a fun, slightly sarcastic writing style. I found myself laughing out loud a lot. Plus the extensive list of references (thousands!) is invaluable. I thoroughly recommend reading the whole thing, including the Appendices, because they cleared up a lot of my questions and made sense of some of the more conflicting and ambiguous data. It just made good reading. Uffe Ravnskov has better credentials and his book is much more concise, current, and less " speculative " , but you have to admire an aerospace guy (Russel ) for going after this issue. in Berkeley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 Matt Pack wrote: > What's the quickest way to lower Triglycerides? Monitor any > foods that give off an insulin response and implement a regular exercise > program. What do you mean by monitoring? Limiting? Protein causes insulin release too. However, it smoothens out glucose level. I think what had better be " monitored " (whatever that means) is glucose destabilizing foods. Roman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.