Cholesterol - Why do Traditional HG's have better results than us on Primal page

[Omni]

I've never tested my Cholesterol, maybe one day, but I am looking into it for my partner and her mother whom both have had higher levels in the past.
I've looked at a variety of diet types and decided for a variety of reasons that Primal/Paleo is the best direction for overall health.
I am intrigued by the Cholesterol discussions, this is one of the critical health markers that are quoted in studies in support of the Paleo diet and Traditional Hunter Gatherer groups pass with flying colours, even on their LDL numbers.
Yet when we try to emulate their diet & behaviours there seems to be an overwhelming tendancy to high LDL, this is explained away as ok because it is type A, big and fluffy, and not causal in CHD as the oxidised small remnants are the ones that cause plaque. That's well and fine, but I am gathering information so that when I speak to their doctors I can educate them with supporting scientific data.
So why do we have higher LDL than traditional HG's?

Is it because:
*Systemic inflamation from years of SAD foods & lifestyle.
*High Omega 6 PUFA intake, prone to oxidation, which takes years to clear from our bodies.
*High calorific intakes continuously during day, not allowing repair time for body always preoccupied with digestion.
*Stress of modern life
*Any other ideas?

I know LDL is primarily sent out for body repair, so a high level seems to be indicative of damage somewhere in need of repair, where is it, what is it and how long before we get to the true HG cholesterol range?

Anyone out there who actually has good Cholesterol levels according to the standard measures?

[Grafter]

Where are you getting your data for traditional HG? Since without knowing what group we are comparing against, it is really hard to make valid comparisons.

That being said, another few potential reasons are the amount of access we have to food now and the limited nutritional density in a lot of the conventional available food (due to treating them like commodities).

As far as good levels, I'm well under the 220 mg/dl. I would have to pull my numbers, but I think my last test had something like 110 total, 50 HG, 25 Trig.

[Forgotmylastusername]

Probably because their eating is much more periodic and less predictable. They are mostly likely not 3 squares meals a day most of the time. More activity as well.

[Knifegill]

Actually, it's the parasites. http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/07...rs-conclusion/

[Goldie]

Read Dr. Attia's lesson here:

The straight dope on cholesterol

Very scientific but understandable. I've read it several times, it's well worth the time to read it.

[Omni]

Where are you getting your data for traditional HG? Since without knowing what group we are comparing against, it is really hard to make valid comparisons.

That being said, another few potential reasons are the amount of access we have to food now and the limited nutritional density in a lot of the conventional available food (due to treating them like commodities).

As far as good levels, I'm well under the 220 mg/dl. I would have to pull my numbers, but I think my last test had something like 110 total, 50 HG, 25 Trig.

I think it was Kitava that were recently quoted on another thread, but I have seen this mentioned with other HG groups like San Bushmen & Tokalu islanders, in some of Cordains work and others.
Your results seem to be great, I was thinking more of all those individuals that come back with Totals over 250, often over 300.

I will go and see if I can get some specific data for the Traditional HG's Cholesterol levels.

[Omni]

Actually, it's the parasites. Serum Cholesterol Among Hunter-Gatherers: Conclusion | Perfect Health Diet

Linked from your link:
Serum Cholesterol Among the Eskimos and Inuit | Perfect Health Diet

TC is mostly between 200 and 240 mg/dl, LDL between 100 and 160, and HDL between 50 and 70. Cholesterol increased as fish oil intake increased – evidence that cholesterol gets higher as the diet becomes more traditional.

So I suppose this may be a good figure as a starting benchmark.
Interesting the disease conditions related to the low figure HG populations.

[Omni]

Probably because their eating is much more periodic and less predictable. They are mostly likely not 3 squares meals a day most of the time. More activity as well.

That's one of the things I was thinking, from the fasting threads it indicated that HDL is improved by intermitant fasting.

[Omni]

Read Dr. Attia's lesson here:

The straight dope on cholesterol

Very scientific but understandable. I've read it several times, it's well worth the time to read it.

I'll go back and have a look at it, I have read various explanations, but I suppose what I'm after is some definative answer (maybe not possible) on what should be the best ranges for both Men & Women, most of what I have seen talks more about what is good & bad but doesn't specify numbers too much.
Maybe I need to just knuckle down and do a bunch of reading to get my head around it fully.
It'd be nice to just get the targets required and actions needed to reach those targets.

[nixxy]

I haven't looked too deeply into all the stuff about cholesterol... mainly because my own results have been fantastic so I don't care on a personal level! So here's my n=1.... we're all unique of course but my improvements couldn't be much better!

Before primal
Total: 215
Trigs: 135
HDL: 35
LDL: 155

Total/HDL: 6.1 (Supposed to be 4.4 or lower for women)
Trig/HDL: 3.9 (Supposed to be below 2)
LDL/HDL: 4.4 (Supposed to be below 4.3)


After 3 months of eating primal and losing ~38 lb
Total: 200
Trigs: 80
HDL: 50
LDL: 140

Total/HDL: 4.0 (Supposed to be 4.4 or lower for women)
Trig/HDL: 1.6 (Supposed to be below 2)
LDL/HDL: 2.8 (Supposed to be below 4.3)


So, I improved in every single area! Trigs went down, HDL came up, and all my ratios are now acceptable.