25 replies to this topic

[magnelectro]

I am 24. My total cholesterol was TC:106(LDL:44, HDL:50, VLDL:12) the last time I had the full test a year ago. Anything under 160 is low, and anything under 120 is considered an independent mortality risk (hemorrhagic stroke, etc.). The minimal cholesterol test given when I donate blood has averaged 100 mg/dL (TC) over the past three years, even before I started taking supplements. The latest donation/test was a month ago (TC=105). My doctor is not worried (he says I must have good genes) and neither was I until I had swimming induced pulmonary edema while snorkeling over Christmas. This is basically a hemorrhage in the lungs. While not serious in itself, it made me seriously consider my stroke risk.

My insurance doesn't cover a VAP test ($250) so I’ve decided to gradually (and healthfully) increase my cholesterol. I am dropping liquid fish oil as I may have been taking too much (a small swig every day) and I’m starting to be concerned about lipid peroxidation. I’m also increasing my saturated fat intake by eating a couple tablespoons of coconut oil per day. I will re-test my cholesterol in about six months.

I’m not taking a stand in the EFA controversy (see Ray Peat and Mary Enig). I do believe that EPA and DHA are essential and I plan on eating salmon 1-3 times per week. I also get plenty of alpha-Linolenic acid relative to my moderately low meat intake.

So what do you think?
Am I crazy to drop fish oil?
Should I leave well enough alone?
Should I shoot for a TC of 120 mg/dL?
Are there other potential causes underlying low cholesterol that I should address?

Thank you for your input!

Edit: Added VLDL.

Edited by magnelectro, 21 January 2010 - 10:31 PM.

[sthira]

Are you counting triglycerides and VLDL into your total cholesterol numbers?

[niner]

I would switch from liquid fish oil to encapsulated fish oil to address the risk of oxidation and make it easier/more convenient to accurately measure your dose. I'd take 2 grams/d, and I would also use coconut oil.

[medievil]

I hope you realise that only oxidized LDL is a problem and not normal LDL.

[kismet]

I am 24. My total cholesterol was 103 mg/dL (LDL:53, HDL:50) the last time I had the full test a year ago. Anything under 160 is low, and anything under 120 is considered an independent mortality risk (hemorrhagic stroke, etc.).

Never heard that. Do you have a source for that statement?
Sure there must be a minimal level necessary for survival, but it's not 120mg/dl. (TC in newborns is in the 50-60mg/dl range, so I'd guess the level required for bare survival is quite lower) I haven't seen strong evidence linking low cholesterol levels and all-cause mortality or CVD (barring outliers, cross-sectional studies, etc).

sthira, indeed, but I think that'll add only ~10mg/dl

Edited by kismet, 20 January 2010 - 10:44 PM.

[Jay]

I am 24. My total cholesterol was 103 mg/dL (LDL:53, HDL:50) the last time I had the full test a year ago. Anything under 160 is low, and anything under 120 is considered an independent mortality risk (hemorrhagic stroke, etc.).

Never heard that. Do you have a source for that statement?
Sure there must be a minimal level necessary for survival, but it's not 120mg/dl. (TC in newborns is in the 50-60mg/dl range, so I'd guess the level required for bare survival is quite lower) I haven't seen strong evidence linking low cholesterol levels and all-cause mortality or CVD (barring outliers, cross-sectional studies, etc).

sthira, indeed, but I think that'll add only ~10mg/dl

Kismet, have you seen strong evidence that very low cholesteraol is not considered an independent mortality risk? If so, I'd love to see it. I'm aware of several studies showing that very low cholesterol levels are associated with higher rates of mortality and none that show that very low cholesterol is associated with better health outcomes.

[aaron_e]

i'd remove high copper foods from the diet like soy, avacados, nuts. start eating eggs if you are not allergic.

cholesterol is required for hormone and coq10 synthesis, so too low is not good.

[magnelectro]

Are you counting triglycerides and VLDL into your total cholesterol numbers?

Two years ago, the test did not count VLDL as far as I know the results were: TC:94 (LDL:43, HDL:43). The test I had one year ago did: TC:106(LDL:44, HDL:50, VLDL:12. My triglycerides for the two tests were 38 and 61 respectively. Thank you for helping me clarify this.

I would switch from liquid fish oil to encapsulated fish oil to address the risk of oxidation and make it easier/more convenient to accurately measure your dose. I'd take 2 grams/d, and I would also use coconut oil.

I’d considered this especially for the convenience and dose accuracy, but examination of the label reveals that one teaspoon has 1600mg Omega-3 (800 EPA, 500 DHA, 300 Other). Considering the size of my swigs I average less than 2g Omega-3 per day. The oxidation issue has me confused, though. Some people act like fish oil is nitroglycerin whether in a bottle or your body, while the fish oil companies say it will become completely unpalatable long before oxidation becomes an issue. Liquid fish oil is a lot cheaper and I keep it in the fridge, opening it only to take. Is there any evidence that pills are better? I’ve bitten into some cheap fish oil pills and had them taste WAY nasty. Perhaps I shouldn't drop fish oil, but I have two or three unopened bottles that I should use before buying new (unless of course that liquid fish oil's going to kill me )

I hope you realise that only oxidized LDL is a problem and not normal LDL.

I have heard this, but have to admit I don’t know much about it. I’m not sure what it has to do with hypo-cholesterolemia though. For what it’s worth, I don’t smoke, consume trans fats, or have metabolic syndrome. I also eat lots of veggies.

I am 24. My total cholesterol was 103 mg/dL (LDL:53, HDL:50) the last time I had the full test a year ago. Anything under 160 is low, and anything under 120 is considered an independent mortality risk (hemorrhagic stroke, etc.).

Never heard that. Do you have a source for that statement?
Sure there must be a minimal level necessary for survival, but it's not 120mg/dl. (TC in newborns is in the 50-60mg/dl range, so I'd guess the level required for bare survival is quite lower) I haven't seen strong evidence linking low cholesterol levels and all-cause mortality or CVD (barring outliers, cross-sectional studies, etc).

Ah kismet, how I love your rallying cry of show me the data! While most of the really good mortality data comes from the elderly or sick, there is a demographic meta-analysis showing a U-shaped mortality curve (for males) with optimal TC being between 160 and 239. While low blood cholesterol was associated with low heart disease risk, mortality from respiratory disease, digestive disease, some cancers, trauma, and other causes of death were all greater. Total mortality for TC<160 was greater than TC>240.

i'd remove high copper foods from the diet like soy, avacados, nuts. start eating eggs if you are not allergic.

cholesterol is required for hormone and coq10 synthesis, so too low is not good.

I will do some reading on copper and cholesterol, but could you expound upon this? I do love edamame, soy milk, avocados and walnuts. I also eat eggs 3-4 times per week.

Edited by magnelectro, 21 January 2010 - 05:39 PM.

[kismet]

Ah kismet, how I love your rallying cry of show me the data! While most of the really good mortality data comes from the elderly or sick, there is a demographic meta-analysis showing a U-shaped mortality curve (for males) with optimal TC being between 160 and 239. While low blood cholesterol was associated with low heart disease risk, mortality from respiratory disease, digestive disease, some cancers, trauma, and other causes of death were all greater. Total mortality for TC<160 was greater than TC>240.

Erm, ok, then, yes, show me the evidence. Which studies? Let's stick to prospective studies and better yet to actual TC/HDL ratios. Demography (i.e. mostly unadjusted cross-sectional data) is beyond worthless.

There seems to be a monotonic relationship with IHD, still the number #1 killer. See the nutrition section:
Lancet. 2007 Dec 1;370(9602):1829-39.
Blood cholesterol and vascular mortality by age, sex, and blood pressure: a meta-analysis of individual data from 61 prospective studies with 55,000 vascular deaths.
Prospective Studies Collaboration et al.

Now, I'd love to see the cancer and all-cause mortality data. I am assuming you can point out those studies (meta-analyses) if you think that low cholesterol is dangerous.

EDIT: Although, I am not sure about the range of cholesterol intakes assessed in the meta-analysis, it should easily refute the U-shaped curve seen in weak ecological studies. The rest is usually a matter of extrapolation. Cancer mortality would be interesting, though.

Edited by kismet, 21 January 2010 - 05:35 PM.

[yucca06]

Ah kismet, how I love your rallying cry of show me the data! While most of the really good mortality data comes from the elderly or sick, there is a demographic meta-analysis showing a U-shaped mortality curve (for males) with optimal TC being between 160 and 239. While low blood cholesterol was associated with low heart disease risk, mortality from respiratory disease, digestive disease, some cancers, trauma, and other causes of death were all greater. Total mortality for TC<160 was greater than TC>240.

Erm, ok, then, yes, show me the evidence. Which studies? And stick to prospective studies and better yet to actual TC/HDL ratios. Demography (i.e. cross-sectional data) is beyond worthless.

There seems to be a monotonic relationship with IHD, still the number #1 killer. See the nutrition section:
Lancet. 2007 Dec 1;370(9602):1829-39.
Blood cholesterol and vascular mortality by age, sex, and blood pressure: a meta-analysis of individual data from 61 prospective studies with 55,000 vascular deaths.
Prospective Studies Collaboration et al.

Now, I'd love to see the cancer and all-cause mortality data. I am assuming you can point out those studies (meta-analyses) if you think that low cholesterol is dangerous.

...Just read "the chinese study", Colin Campbell.
There's absolutely NO risk with low cholesterol levels, when chinese with traditional diet (= 90% vegan) have usually between 70 (!!!) and 150, for the very highest.
The only risk would be if your LDL was much more higher than your HDL. It's nos the case, so you're safe.
Everyone can get a pulmonary oedema while snorking. With high or low cholesterol levels.

Anyway, coconut oil is a good idea for your health, and for everyone's health. You can't get wrong with that.

Edited by yucca06, 21 January 2010 - 05:39 PM.

[kismet]

For a start, let's read this editorial (based on this study) describing what is likely current consensus.

"The central question for the clinician is whether a low LDL carries with it any intrinsic danger of cancer or other serious consequences (leaving aside for the moment possible side effects of the therapeutic intervention). Almost certainly not."

"While pre-existing cancer can account for most of the J-shaped curve, it may not account for all of it. When cancers surfacing during the first few years are excluded from consideration, on the assumption that those cancers must have been already present at the time the study began, the LDL/cancer relationship weakens considerably but does not reach zero. Even after eliminating all cancers that surface during the first 5 years, there is a small residual excess in the low LDL group (11). However, there is evidence that low initial LDL values can be observed for as long as 10 years before the cancer surfaces (9). Also, other chronic diseases, such as alcoholism or cirrhosis, can lower cholesterol levels and also predispose to cancer, possibly accounting for the sometimes long gap between the initial lowering of LDL and the ultimate expression of the cancer."

Edited by kismet, 21 January 2010 - 06:02 PM.

[magnelectro]

Erm, ok, then, yes, show me the evidence. Which studies? Let's stick to prospective studies and better yet to actual TC/HDL ratios. Demography (i.e. mostly unadjusted cross-sectional data) is beyond worthless.

There seems to be a monotonic relationship with IHD, still the number #1 killer. See the nutrition section:
Lancet. 2007 Dec 1;370(9602):1829-39.
Blood cholesterol and vascular mortality by age, sex, and blood pressure: a meta-analysis of individual data from 61 prospective studies with 55,000 vascular deaths.
Prospective Studies Collaboration et al.

Now, I'd love to see the cancer and all-cause mortality data. I am assuming you can point out those studies (meta-analyses) if you think that low cholesterol is dangerous.

EDIT: Although, I am not sure about the range of cholesterol intakes assessed in the meta-analysis, it should easily refute the U-shaped curve seen in weak ecological studies. The rest is usually a matter of extrapolation. Cancer mortality would be interesting, though.

Ah yes--(not data) Evidence! I am so sorry for not including a link to the study: Report of the Conference on Low Blood Cholesterol: Mortality Associations. It is a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies much like the paper you cited. It does not look at TC/HDL levels, nor does it deal with cholesterol intake which is another (controversial) subject. You are right: a minimum plasma cholesterol concentration has not been established, but having cholesterol below 160 is strongly correlated with all-cause mortality (see attached figure). Besides the possibility of negative consequences being caused by my low cholesterol I am more worried about some underlying dysfunction that would cause both the low cholesterol and increase the mortality risk.

So basically, you are saying that my cholesterol level is fine and that even if I could increase it, that wouldn't be advisable?

Do you think that my 'plan to increase cholesterol' would actually do that? Would it have any other negative effects?

Circulation. 1992 Sep;86(3):1046-60.
Report of the Conference on Low Blood Cholesterol: Mortality Associations.
Jacobs D, Blackburn H, Higgins M, Reed D, Iso H, McMillan G, Neaton J, Nelson J, Potter J, Rifkind B, et al.

BACKGROUND. A National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Conference was held October 9-10, 1990, to review and discuss existing data on U-shaped relations found between mortality rates and blood total cholesterol levels (TC) in some but not other studies. Presentations were given from 19 cohort studies from the United States, Europe, Israel, and Japan. A representative of each study presented its findings and also submitted tables of proportional hazards regression coefficients for entry TC levels in regard to death, and these were incorporated into a formal statistical overview adjusted for age, diastolic blood pressure, cigarette smoking, body mass index, and alcohol intake, as available. METHODS AND RESULTS. The U-shape for total mortality in men and the flat relation in women resulted largely from a positive relation of TC with coronary heart disease death and an inverse relation with deaths caused by some cancers (e.g., lung but not colon), respiratory disease, digestive disease, trauma, and residual deaths. Risk for combined noncardiovascular, noncancer causes of death decreased steadily across the range of TC.
PMID: 1355411 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Attached Files

•  Fig.1_2.jpg   201.12KB   16 downloads

[david ellis]

So what do you think?

Thank you for your input!

I think you are worrying about nothing. You are the first person I have met worried about his low cholesterol. I don't worry about high cholesterol and I think you shouldn't worry about low cholesterol. Relax, and enjoy the health that comes with being very young.

Edited by david ellis, 21 January 2010 - 06:31 PM.

[magnelectro]

...Just read "the chinese study", Colin Campbell.
There's absolutely NO risk with low cholesterol levels, when chinese with traditional diet (= 90% vegan) have usually between 70 (!!!) and 150, for the very highest.
The only risk would be if your LDL was much more higher than your HDL. It's nos the case, so you're safe.
Everyone can get a pulmonary oedema while snorking. With high or low cholesterol levels.

Anyway, coconut oil is a good idea for your health, and for everyone's health. You can't get wrong with that.

I've read parts of The China Study. It does cite examples of very low TC (94-127) being epidemiologically associated with lower risk of heart disease and certain types of cancer. This is not contradicted by the study I mentioned above. Does the book look at lifespan or include any studies looking at the relationship between total cholesterol and mortality? The main point of the book seems to be that meat consumption is associated with 'Western diseases'--especially heart disease. But vegetarians don't live longer than carnivores on average[1] and lifespan is really what I'm concerned about.

Besides, I'm not supplementing with bacon!

1. "Vegetarians do not live any longer than carnivores - Brief Article". Eurofood. FindArticles.com. 21 Jan, 2010. http://findarticles...._6/ai_63857284/

[magnelectro]

For a start, let's read this editorial (based on this study) describing what is likely current consensus.

"The central question for the clinician is whether a low LDL carries with it any intrinsic danger of cancer or other serious consequences (leaving aside for the moment possible side effects of the therapeutic intervention). Almost certainly not."

"While pre-existing cancer can account for most of the J-shaped curve, it may not account for all of it. When cancers surfacing during the first few years are excluded from consideration, on the assumption that those cancers must have been already present at the time the study began, the LDL/cancer relationship weakens considerably but does not reach zero. Even after eliminating all cancers that surface during the first 5 years, there is a small residual excess in the low LDL group (11). However, there is evidence that low initial LDL values can be observed for as long as 10 years before the cancer surfaces (9). Also, other chronic diseases, such as alcoholism or cirrhosis, can lower cholesterol levels and also predispose to cancer, possibly accounting for the sometimes long gap between the initial lowering of LDL and the ultimate expression of the cancer."

The first quote is very evocative when presented out of context, but the editorial ("Statin Treatment Does Not Cause Cancer") and paper are both about artificial reduction of LDL with statins. This is not the case in my situation. Furthermore, the study corroborates the study I cited above by showing that low LDL is associated with increase cancer risk. The fact that statin treatment itself is not significantly associated is irrelevant.

I think you are worrying about nothing. You are the first person I have met worried about his low cholesterol. I don't worry about high cholesterol and I think you shouldn't worry about low cholesterol. Relax, and enjoy the health that comes with being very young.

Very good point!

So far, the consensus seems to be: Don't worry. Keep taking fish oil. Coconut oil is also good.
I'd be interested to hear dissenting voices especially about the dangers of low cholesterol and lipid peroxidation / AGE from fish oil.

[stephen_b]

My triglycerides for the two tests were 38 and 61 respectively.

For low triglycerides such as yours, LDL (a calculated value) is inaccurate.

[kismet]

The first quote is very evocative when presented out of context, but the editorial ("Statin Treatment Does Not Cause Cancer") and paper are both about artificial reduction of LDL with statins. This is not the case in my situation. Furthermore, the study corroborates the study I cited above by showing that low LDL is associated with increase cancer risk. The fact that statin treatment itself is not significantly associated is irrelevant.

Yes, it also corroborates the old truism that 'correlation does not imply causation' and provides evidence further weakening the LDL-cancer hypothesis, which is weak to begin with if you exclude early cancers as you should (so at worst you trade great benefits for CVD health vs a small cancer risk). No one said low LDL isn't correlated with cancer. But low LDL like does not cause cancer. The fact that statins do not increase cancer incidence and are associated with decreased mortality despite lowering LDL (!) is actually rather important.

Correlations are completely meaningless, they're only one of the proxies for causation. Hence our interest in correlations.

Edited by kismet, 21 January 2010 - 11:06 PM.

[Jay]

The first quote is very evocative when presented out of context, but the editorial ("Statin Treatment Does Not Cause Cancer") and paper are both about artificial reduction of LDL with statins. This is not the case in my situation. Furthermore, the study corroborates the study I cited above by showing that low LDL is associated with increase cancer risk. The fact that statin treatment itself is not significantly associated is irrelevant.

Yes, it also corroborates the old truism that 'correlation does not imply causation' and provides evidence further weakening the LDL-cancer hypothesis, which is weak to begin with if you exclude early cancers as you should (so at worst you trade great benefits for CVD health vs a small cancer risk). No one said low LDL isn't correlated with cancer. But low LDL like does not cause cancer. The fact that statins do not increase cancer incidence and are associated with decreased mortality despite lowering LDL (!) is actually rather important.

Correlations are completely meaningless, they're only one of the proxies for causation. Hence our interest in correlations.

Low cholesterol associates with low serum carotene and retinol. I believe carotene absorption requires the presence of fat and retinol is found, well, in fat, so it seems reasonable to me that low fat diets cause low cholesterol and cancer in some people, the cancer mediated by vitamin A metabolism. There are numerous studies that explore this hypothesis.

[niner]

The non-CV, non-cancer mortality graphs that magnelectro posted are interesting. They suggest that the low TC population is skinny, perhaps due to digestive problems, and that they have weak immune systems. It could all be explained by a lipid malabsorption problem. You could perhaps gauge your risk in these areas; what do you weigh? Do you have trouble putting on weight, or digestive problems in general? You can have your vitamin A level tested; that's a fair proxy for lipid malabsorption. How's your 25-OH vitamin D level?

Regarding the statin study, aren't statins associated with reductions in at least some kinds of cancer independent of LDL? That study seems like a poor match for the case of inherently low LDL.

[ajnast4r]

definitely do not 'swig' fish oil... fish oil is a supplement, not food, and doses should be metered.

a swig could net you ~10g epa/dha which is overkilll and could cause you some problems if your n6 intake is already low.

[yucca06]

...Just read "the chinese study", Colin Campbell.
There's absolutely NO risk with low cholesterol levels, when chinese with traditional diet (= 90% vegan) have usually between 70 (!!!) and 150, for the very highest.
The only risk would be if your LDL was much more higher than your HDL. It's nos the case, so you're safe.
Everyone can get a pulmonary oedema while snorking. With high or low cholesterol levels.

Anyway, coconut oil is a good idea for your health, and for everyone's health. You can't get wrong with that.

I've read parts of The China Study. It does cite examples of very low TC (94-127) being epidemiologically associated with lower risk of heart disease and certain types of cancer. This is not contradicted by the study I mentioned above. Does the book look at lifespan or include any studies looking at the relationship between total cholesterol and mortality? The main point of the book seems to be that meat consumption is associated with 'Western diseases'--especially heart disease. But vegetarians don't live longer than carnivores on average[1] and lifespan is really what I'm concerned about.

Besides, I'm not supplementing with bacon!

1. "Vegetarians do not live any longer than carnivores - Brief Article". Eurofood. FindArticles.com. 21 Jan, 2010. http://findarticles...._6/ai_63857284/

Yes, vegetarians. But vegans ?
Vegetarians usually eat much more dairy food as the other people, because they're afraid to not get enough protein. Dairy protein (casein) is the worst thing you can eat if you want to live longer (if we agree to Colin Campbell).

So the 1st thing is to cut dairy products, then you can eat meat/fish and not be afraid about cancer/heart disease if your total caloric intake of animal protein is not over 5-6% , which is about a 1 part only of meat or fish/day (for 2000 cal/d, 5% is 100cal, it's about 25g animal protein : 120g red meat or 150g fish/day, no more)

[kismet]

Regarding the statin study, aren't statins associated with reductions in at least some kinds of cancer independent of LDL? That study seems like a poor match for the case of inherently low LDL.

Not necessarily. For one thing we can't simply postulate that statins reduce all-cause cancer incidence via some class-effect. It's extremely rare that a drug can prevent cancer mortality, in fact I don't know a single drug that can do it (the evidence on aspirin e.g. is weak and mixed; and that's one of the best candidates for chemoprevention). And I don't think there's any evidence to suggest *broad* chemoprevention by statins to offset those benefits.
Furthermore, "[cancer incidence does] not correlate with the extent of LDL reduction induced by the statins, whether expressed in relative terms (percentage fall) or in absolute terms (fall in mg/dl)"
I think we would have to postulate that their (putative) broad anti-carcinogenic effects are equal in magnitude to the pro-carcinogenic effects of LDL across a broad range of LDL-levels, for such a relationship to hold true. Possible, but is it likely?

Hence statins are more of a reassuring example, but there's certainly more to it than that.

Edited by kismet, 22 January 2010 - 03:51 PM.

[rotem]

low cholesterol is bad

http://www.ncbi.nlm....Pubmed_RVDocSum

Dietary fats, cholesterol and iron as risk factors for Parkinson's disease.

Low LDL cholesterol and increased risk of Parkinson's disease: prospective results from Honolulu-Asia Aging Study.

Low cholesterol and aggression in bipolar disorders.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16806824?ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
low cholesterol increase NFkappaB

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18599549?ordinalpos=6&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Edited by rotem, 27 January 2010 - 11:29 AM.

[magnelectro]

For low triglycerides such as yours, LDL (a calculated value) is inaccurate.

True, but I am concerned with total cholesterol which is directly measured. The Friedewald equation over-estimates LDL at low triglyceride values, but this doesn’t mitigate my concern.
http://www.ams.ac.ir.../08113/0014.pdf

The non-CV, non-cancer mortality graphs that magnelectro posted are interesting. They suggest that the low TC population is skinny, perhaps due to digestive problems, and that they have weak immune systems. It could all be explained by a lipid malabsorption problem. You could perhaps gauge your risk in these areas; what do you weigh? Do you have trouble putting on weight, or digestive problems in general? You can have your vitamin A level tested; that's a fair proxy for lipid malabsorption. How's your 25-OH vitamin D level?

I am 6’9” (1.75m) and 145lbs (68kg). My BMI is 21.4 which is normal. I am neither skinny nor fat and it is not difficult for me to put on weight. I do have sporadic digestive problems and I can’t rule out lipid malabsorption. Thank you very much for suggesting a vitamin A test. This never would have occurred to me. I have not had 25-OH vitamin D measured either but I have recently begun taking 4000IU/day and I will test both vitamins with my regular blood test in about a month.

definitely do not 'swig' fish oil... fish oil is a supplement, not food, and doses should be metered.
a swig could net you ~10g epa/dha which is overkilll and could cause you some problems if your n6 intake is already low.

You are correct, but I can see that I was careless with my words. When I first started taking fish oil I would measure out each dose (1tsp = 800mg EPA & 500mg DHA). After a while, I got to know what 1tsp feels like in my mouth and my ‘swigs’ are approximately 1-1.5tsp per day.

Yes, vegetarians. But vegans ?
Vegetarians usually eat much more dairy food as the other people, because they're afraid to not get enough protein. Dairy protein (casein) is the worst thing you can eat if you want to live longer (if we agree to Colin Campbell).
So the 1st thing is to cut dairy products, then you can eat meat/fish and not be afraid about cancer/heart disease if your total caloric intake of animal protein is not over 5-6% , which is about a 1 part only of meat or fish/day (for 2000 cal/d, 5% is 100cal, it's about 25g animal protein : 120g red meat or 150g fish/day, no more)

I eat very little dairy. The only dairy product I regularly consume is yogurt. Are you saying I should cut that too?

Your theory is interesting, but all the studies I’ve read say that vegans have a higher overall mortality rate than pescatarians and lactoovo-vegetarians. Vegan mortality rate is comparable to regular meat eaters [1]. This may be due to the lack of carnosine in the veg diet [2] which could potentially be compensated by supplementation, but there may be other factors which we are not aware of.

Still, I will read more about casein and consider what you have said. I don't typically eat a lot of animal products, but maybe I should eat more. I don't think that coconut oil alone is going to raise my total cholesterol.

1. Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies
2. Hipkiss AR. Glycation, ageing and carnosine: Are carnivorous diets beneficial? Mech Ageing Dev. 2005 Oct;126(10):1034-9.

low cholesterol is bad

Thank you for the research, rotem. Pretty fascinating stuff, and it seems like just the tip of the iceberg. I will provide commentary and additional research when I have time.

[magnelectro]

I just ran across this amazing article about the benefits of high cholesterol. I still need to dig into some of the references but I am now completely convinced that my low total cholesterol (~100) is dangerous to health. No one who has argued to the contrary has provided any relevant evidence. The cardio-protective benefits of extremely low cholesterol shown in some studies were not replicated in others (see the references in the above link). Furthermore, overall mortality is clearly inversely related to cholesterol at least on the low end of the scale. Life Extension Foundation also says that <160 is outside of the 'optimal range' for longevity. I will consult one of their health advisors when I have a spare moment.

I have decided to postpone my blood test for two reasons: 1) The local blood test lab does VLDL but not Lp(a). I figure if I'm going to pay for a cholesterol test I might as well get the most informative test possible. 2) I have decided that adding coconut oil is not enough to raise my total cholesterol so I have decided to start consuming more exogenous cholesterol as an experiment. To the horror of some of the raw vegan crowd (to which I sympathize) this means more meat products. I have been having meals like steak and bacon with brussel sprouts smothered in butter sautéed onions, mushrooms, and garlic. I don't know if this is the best thing for my health, but I feel better since I've started (placebo?). Before I was light headed, couldn't concentrate, and perhaps had (self-diagnosed) depression. Anyway, the experiment continues.

In my year as a vegetarian I read a lot of information about the negative health effects of meat. Much of it seemed scientifically valid, but the epidemiological studies of overall lifespan started to change my mind. Nevertheless, I still feel a bit cautious about embracing massive meat consumption as a life-style. I want to raise my cholesterol, but what is the safest way?

Also, I have decided that dropping fish oil is crazy so I will be resuming with the liquid fish oil that I have. How long does fish oil last in the fridge if opened once a day? It takes me quite a long time to consume an entire bottle (I threw out my last one when I started this thread) but there are no significant changes in flavor or appearance. Is it obvious when fish oil has oxidized or might I be exposing myself to lipid peroxides without noticing it?

[rotem]

I also have low cholesterol.
I don't want to eat exogenous choesterol , becuase it inhibit the endogenous synthesis.
That's why I'm looking for ways to increase the enzymes that synthesize endogenous cholesterol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMG-CoA_reductase

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SREBP

and more.

Do you know of ways to increase them?

Edited by rotem, 13 February 2010 - 07:13 AM.