_ap_ufes{"success":true,"siteUrl":"freetheanimal.com","urls":{"Home":"http://freetheanimal.com","Category":"http://freetheanimal.com/blog-admin","Archive":"http://freetheanimal.com/2014/07","Post":"http://freetheanimal.com/2014/07/taking-accounting-business.html","Page":"http://freetheanimal.com/advertising-product-service","Nav_menu_item":"http://freetheanimal.com/2014/07/subscribe.html","Content_ad_widget":"http://freetheanimal.com/?content_ad_widget=widget-2-5x118"}}_ap_ufee

Is Cholesterol a Problem to Be Managed?

I'm going to begin by saying that via this blog I've likely contributed to the notion that it should. I've posted my own cholesterol numbers a few times, have written many posts on it, argued how the paleo-like diet improves the numbers, and so on.

For decades, likely since Ancel Keys, there has been a focus on reducing cholesterol, under the presumption that high cholesterol causes heart disease. And, so, there's all sorts of dietary advice, and now prescription medications to lower cholesterol. In fact, no such causal link has ever been even close to being proved. And, in fact, even the associations once thought to be solid, aren't there.

Want proof of that? Got 77 seconds?

Let's just sum it up beyond what's given in the video: about half the people who die of heat disease have low cholesterol, half high. For women, higher cholesterol seems to be associated with higher longevity. For older people too.

In spite of this, many of us on paleo like to tout our great lipid numbers. Why? If none of these "associations" are even very sound, and a causal link has never been established, then what's "good" or "bad" in these numbers?

The thing about a paleo like diet is that we operate from a principle that has tons of basis in fact: we know what we evolved to eat. We know the archeological record of excellent health for pre-agricultural humans. We know that dozens, even hundreds of primitive hunter-gatherers, pastoralists, and other non-industrial peoples have been observed by physicians and other scientists going back 200 years, and virtually none of the diseases of civilization show up. We know all this, yet then go get our lipids tested to confirm that we're eating right.

Shouldn't we just know that we're eating right? How do you feel? Very nearly everyone raves about how great they feel; that is, until they get their cholesterol numbers and they aren't in the club with the rest of us who have "good" numbers.

I've come to believe that there's a lot of silliness going on and I'm sorry to have been a part in promoting it.

Cholesterol is not a problem to be managed, a diet of real foods is what is to be managed and the cholesterol numbers are the numbers.

Let's dive into a couple of examples. I had three, but I have misplaced one and can't find it. If the reader who wanted his numbers looked at by other readers for comment would still like that, please email it again and I'll append it to this post. I previously did a post on a reader Patrik's MNR LipoProfile.

First up is Tim, who we first saw right here. Then we saw his transformation photos. He decided to do a 90-day experiment with eating meat only. He sent his latest numbers.

You have my earlier cholesterol numbers from that previous post you did.  I did a 90 day Zero Carb test with a sample of one (me, 41 year old, white male) from May 1 to August. Primarily ate beef from a free range, hormone free local ranch.

Got some numbers back.  You have my previous from that post.  In a nutshell:

c-Reactive Protein unchanged at .3 mg/L
HbA1C unchanged 5.2%
mean plasma glucose unchanged 119 mg/dl

So no changes, and liver and kidney function all remained unchanged/fine

My Lipid Panel this time is an NMR Lipoprofile, so the proper thing, I suppose.  I can rattle off the numbers:

Total Cholesterol 288 mg/dl
Triglycerides 50 mg/dl
HDL 93 mg/dl

So, I had a Total increase, a slight Triglyceride increase and a pretty good HDL increase.

More NMR Nitty Gritty I'll need help sorting out as the units of measure are odd to me, but here it is:

Total LDL Particle Concentration 1348 nmol/L  (considered borderline high)
Small LDL Particle Concentration sub 300 nmol/L (with sub 600 optimal)
Total HDL Particle Concentration 34 umol/L (considered intermediate)
Large HDL Particle Concentration 17.9 umol/L (with above 9 optimal, so banger)

And they threw in my calculated LDL at 185 mg/dL which is a guess using the Friedewald equation?

SO, I don't understand how to convert units, nmol/L and umol/L, but I gather that my LDL is indeed up, but it is pretty much all the non-threatening A type larger.  And my HDL is also about as big and protective as it gets.  Couple all that with the low low low inflammation markers, the low glucose levels, and I'm sitting pretty happy.  Would like help converting and interpreting the NMR nmol/l and umol/L numbers..... got any experts at hand?

I think my LDL is classified "borderline high" but conventional wisdom still does not take particle size (mine are large and fluffy) into consideration.  My lab results even have this little pro- "statin-ator" comment:

"...studies have shown that elevated LDL particle concentration is associated with increased risk for coronary heart disease.  Statins effectively reduce the number of LDL particles, but DO NOT GENERALLY INFLUENCE THE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF THE LDL PARTICLES...."

So, I could spend a ton of money to get likely smaller LDL particles, AND less protective HDL, and muscle cramps, cancer, and neurological disorders, but I think I'll stay statin free, and keep on pouring in the animal fats.

My one comment would be that the LDL particle number of 1348 nmol/L corresponds to an actual LDL of 134. Notice that his Friedewald measured LDL (the kind 99% of people get) is 185, an error of 40%. I recently blogged about this and a new formula some Iranian researchers came up with for when triglycerides are under 100. There's a calculator too. Well, under that formula, Tim's calculated LDL comes out to 145, a very reasonable calculated approximation of his actual of 134.

OK, great, right? paleo diet -- even a near zero carb one -- confirmed. Tim has the cholesterol numbers to prove it. No slight to Tim at all, and yea, anyone is going to be pleased to get these results. But what if you don't?

The next reader is "John." Rather than an MNR, he has pre and post paleo VAP tests. I've uploaded the files for reference.

Now, for those who don't want to dig deep, here's the summary from John:

I just got a blood lipid panel from my first 3 months of Paleo.  Very, very few cheats in that 3 months.
 
LDL direct went to 396 from about 150
Triglycerides went from 114 to 150
HDL didn't budge, mid 60s
 
Total Cholesterol went from 240 to 485

After a few questions, he ads further:

1. I am 5'11", started the diet at about 162, am about 150 now, stronger than ever in recent memory (22 pullups this morning).  I tend to be lean, my weight until my mid-20s was 130 lbs, I was a fanatic distance runner.

2. Pretty normal diet, not too much crap compared to average.  I was not a dessert freak or anything.  Lots of chips (doritos, etc.) was my main weakness.

3. I'm trying to eat mostly meat.  We usually have a vegetable or salad with the meal, my wife likes that.  Especially early on, I'd marinade the steak in soy/teriaki blends or something like that, but how much is going to soak in?  At least the last month or so, I've been using dry rubs instead.
 
I have been eating much less fruit than she has.  I'm trying to hold that to one or two servings a week.  I'm totally mystified by the triglycerides as well.  I can't see where they'd be coming from.  I thought lower triglycerides would be the slam-dunk effect of this diet right off the bat.

So, what do you make of that? Should John immediately stop paleo and go back to lots of Doritos? Anyone have any ideas? Anyone seen this huge of a jump in a paleo or low-carb dieter?

I have no idea, myself. But I do think that tremendous of a jump merits some attention, as it could be signaling something else going on. In the meantime, I'd still eat real foods. John should probably look into getting some sort of consultation with a reputable low-carb doc.

To close it up, I'm going to quote what my Hyperlipid UK veterinarian friend Peter told Tim about his cholesterol, as it's insightful and what really got me to thinking about this. See, John's was by far the most dramatic increase, but I've received many disappointed emails from new paleo dieters who didn't get into the "good cholesterol club" with myself and others.

I think you are pretty well in charge of understanding your lipids. The comment about statins reducing LDL count but not size is simply wrong, but this is about what you would expect in our statin culture.

Bear in mind it is perfectly acceptable to view your lipid panel as evidence you are eating an appropriate diet made of real food, which promotes health. The lipids reflect that diet and are secondary markers of the diet... It is not necessary to believe in good or bad cholesterol. Eat Food and never mind the lipids. The Kitavans have "awful" lipids because they eat a carb based real food diet. The real food results in health, the lipids are bad. But the lipids cause no badness because it's not the lipids which are the problem. It's the food that matters! Most real junk is carb based, which is why "carb" lipids are "associated" with ill health. Blame the food not the lipids...

That's just my cantankerous way of looking at things!

Exactly. It's not that it's an awful thing to view your lipids as some confirmation of eating a good diet. But it's probably just confirmation bias, because, what happens when you're John?

Comments

  1. toddhargrove says:

    Great post. I find the questions you raise very interesting, particularly in light of the fact that most HGs have low cholesterol. If we are eating like they do, and they are healthy, then why do we have higher cholesterol? I don't see any clear answers to this question in the paleo community.

  2. I don't think that this an unusual jump in cholesterol. It happened to me on a low carb diet only recently. My numbers from 2/26/09 are as follows.

    Total 190
    HDL 36
    LDL 135
    TG 95

    To the following on 8/25/09:

    Total 365
    HDL 66
    LDL 289
    TG 50

    This happened on eating daily carbs of 30 or less.

  3. I am really happy to read Tony K's numbers. I have to call back to get my TG numbers (any other numbers I should check out?), but an 8 Sep test reported:

    Total 366
    LDL 183
    HDL 145.8

    The doc called immediately, extremely concerned about my health, and wanted to schedule a same-week follow-up. I declined, not really wanting to hear the low-fat low-protein diet I felt he would recommend me. I am a 110-lb fitness trainer with 10%fat. I am strict paleo (no grains, rice, legumes), plus no potatoes, but I eat a lot of fat in my meat (the day prior to the test I independently consumed about 150g of liverwurst sausage with no sugar, conservatives added, I bought at the local german meat store).

    I calculated the ratios I read about in Dr. Eades' Protein Power:

    TC/HDL = 2.5 (below 4=good)
    LDL/HDL = 1.26 (below 3=good)

    …but still I have 366 total – should I be concerned????

    Thanks so much for your very timely post!

    • gin09

      With the ratios posted and the high HDL number, I would be very happy with your numbers. My guess is that your TG number is probably also fine.

  4. Just got my NMR results
    LDL-P 862
    Small LDL-P 55
    TC 239
    LDL calculated 157
    HDL 72
    Tri 49
    LDL particle size 22.7 Large pattern A
    Large HDL-P 15.7
    Large VLDL-P 0.3

    So true LDL is 86
    LDL Friedwald 157 82.6% overstated
    Iranian formula LDL 123 43% overstated

    Although it looks pretty good my HDL dropped 9 points over the last 2 months and calc LDL went up 54 points. I wonder if it's all the processed meat I've been eating lately.

  5. My blood profile got a bit nuts upon going primal as well , first off I am a female, 26 years old – i was 'healthy' to begin with, not overweight but not lean, but since changing my diet i've gotten even leaner (i'm probably 17% BF), feel wonderful and can't imagine going back. Anyway before going primal, and during a diet based primarily around oatmeal, eggs, milk, bread and beans, my total cholesterol was 200; HDL a very good 102, trigs 65, leaving a 'reasonable' LDL'.
    Two months into primal and total went to 366, HDL to 112, trigs to 85 LDL, according to my doctor 'worrying.' So worrying, in fact, she prescribed me some diet changes that I had trouble not laughing out loud at (I'm in a rural area of northern portugal, they're a bit behind i think, even more so than the normal CWers!) – no more than one egg per week (yah right), use artificial sweetner (i wouldn't, even if i ever used real sugar in the first place), try to walk 30 minutes/day (does that include HIIT, weights and backbreaking farmwork?) – the only good advice she had was eat more oily fish, which would be hard considering i already eat it for at least 6 meals a week – being in the Sardine capital of the world.
    So, anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there – I'm listening to my body and not my numbers. By the way I'm only 26/f. I'm going to do an experiment of being primal with limited saturated fat, just to see what happens, for 3 months. Will replace with plenty of monounsaturated fat, of course. But hell if I'm going to eat portuguese style – bread on the side, potato-based cabbage soup, a bunch of meat (ok i'll have that) with two times as much potato and rice (yes, both, at every meal).
    thanks for the site!

    • For me the high numbers are of concern because I am a 60 year old male, 5' 10″ and weight 140 lbs. After years of eating the typical American diet and high cholesterol numbers for most of my life, there is more than likely some progression of plaque build up. The statins that I have used in the past make me feel bad and, as you can see from my previous post, the low fat diet that I had been on prior to going low carb brings my HDL level down below 40. At this point I don't know what to do and the time to do something is getting shorter.

      My doctor has added niacin to my program along with the fish oil. I will retest in 6 months but I don't know if I should do more than that to feel safer regardless of the advice I have read on many of the low carb forums that the numbers do not matter. Can I go by how I feel to guide me? The idea that saturated fat and animal protein does not raise a person's cholesterol levels did not hold true for me. There seems to be people who are exceptions. The big question is why? The simple answer always given is genetics.

  6. A total cholesterol level number is useless. If you are concerned about your lipids, get a NMR manage your ldl-p and small ldl-p numbers. In most cases diet will bring them in line. If not there are supplements that can help.

    A note on results, if you have recently lost weight or are still losing weight, there is a very good chance that your lab results will be wrong. It takes time for the body to adjust to the weight loss. So best to wait until you have stopped losing weight before testing.

  7. dougmcguffmd says:

    Richard,

    Remember, cholesterol measurements are really what I call “a downstream measurement of upstream phenomenon”. In John's case, he is naturally lean, which means his insulin sensitivity on his fat cells is relatively low. Also, his hormone sensitive lipase (the enzyme that mobilizes triacylglycerol from the fat cells) is probably more active than your average person. As a result of these two facts, he is going to have more circulating fat in his blood. He is less likely to store fat in the adipocytes and is more likely to mobilize them for utilization as energy. As a result, his total cholesterol and in particular his triglycerides will measure high. However, his LDL is lower because his systemic inflammation is lower and thus has a decreased need for a low-density protein to carry cholesterol to these sites of inflammation for patching.

    This situation will occur in the very lean (below 9-10% bodyfat) and those making the transition to becoming a fat-burner. The cholesterol and triglycerides are not higher because of increased production in the liver (due to overconsumption of refined carbs in the face of full glycogen stores which requires fat conversion to protect against dangerous elevations of serum glucose). In the case of the fat-burner the numbers are higher because fat is slow to be stored and is easily released for use as fuel. The triglycerides, rather than being stored in the fat cells where they stimulate inflammatory mediators, are dumped into the circulation where they go to the mitochondria of your cells for beta-oxidation to produce energy. The numbers by themselves are meaningless, the context in which they were collected means everything….which is why I don't measure. To those that are actively losing weight while on a H-G diet, remember you are on a high fat diet (your own fat) which has to be in circulation to be used as energy. If you plunge a needle into a vein and take a sample of what is going on during this transition, the numbers are going to look funky and will absolutely freak out the average MD.

    For a good explanation of what I am talking about, see the youtube clip of my lecture in Salt Lake City at http://www.bodybyscience.net. Go to clip #5 and the discussion of the above starts at about 4:50.

  8. I'd like to add my two cents to John's results. I very recently had a similar thing happen. I got tested last year and these were roughly the results…

    TC 190
    HDL 60
    Trigs 65

    This week I got tested again…

    TC 200
    HDL 35
    Trigs 185

    My doctor wasn't concerned due to one fact, I had been losing weight rapidly. I saw the same doc 6 weeks prior for a shoulder issue and weighed in at 290 lbs at 6'2″. This time I was 279, so 11 pounds lost in 6 weeks. Over the first month of that I did very little exercising other than walking the dog due to the shoulder issue. For the last two weeks I re-started my routine of twice a week lifting, once a week sprinting, lots of play (basketball, tennis) and daily half-hour walks with my puppy.

    Over this time I have been very tight with my version of Paleo/Primal eating… mostly meat and veggies (from a local grassfed/free range meat CSA and farmer's markets primarily), lots of nuts, lots of cheese, lots of grassfed butter one or two servings of berries a week generally, some red wine and small amounts of very dark chocolate. I don't think I cheated hardly at all over this time period with the exception of maybe a few experiences having more wine than I should have. I feel great and am looking/sleeping/everything much better.

    My doctor (who has Ancel Keys on his bookshelf, but also likes Michael Pollan a lot) told me not to worry because I was rapidly losing weight. He said all of these adverse changes are likely to appear when someone is losing weight quickly. He also said the same thing about a jump in C-Reactive Protein. He told me to keep doing what I am doing and he'll re-test me in a year or when my weight stabilizes (hopefully around my goal), whichever comes first.

    I do not know enough about the issue to be sure that this is true, but it seems to make sense. If you have been going paleo/low carb for a while and are well adapted to burning your own fat for fuel, wouldn't your circulating lipids be higher than someone who still has glycogen/glucose in the blood/liver/muscles to burn for energy? Even in a moderately fasted state (12 hours)? And we know that saturated fat does seem to raise LDL, albeit not necessarily the atherogenic kind. As stored body fat is saturated, wouldn't burning this also increase blood lipids? The lowered HDL I find disconcerting, but can partially attribute it to the lapse in my exercise regimen and occasional bouts of alcohol over-indulgence. Of course maybe I am looking at the situation through rose-colored glasses. Only time will tell I think.

    Just an idea.

    Cheers,

    Phil

  9. “John” here. Thanks, Dr. McGuff. You have eased my mind somewhat. On the one hand, I don't believe that the numbers taken by themselves are that significant. On the other, it's sure a gut check when they go radically in the opposite direction from what I was expecting. 485 is a big number. And I do believe that certain ways of looking at them (Triglyceride/HDL ratio for example) might be a handle on something.

    In your first paragraph you say that a lean person would have lower LDL due to lower systemic inflammation, etc. I don't follow that, since my LDL went from 157 to 396.

    One bright spot is that LDL4, which is the densest subfraction I have, went from 7.8 to 2.8. But my size distribution barely improved, which implies that LDL3 at least is considered a dense LDL subfraction … and it went from 39.5 to 103.6. So maybe that's really bad.

    I had lost the majority of the 12 pounds in the first 5-6 weeks, no significant weight loss the last 6 weeks, *except* I'd begun to restrict calories a bit, trying to nudge BF down a bit lower. And then I had a big ribeye 15 hours before the draw (but fasted after that, obviously). So maybe the moderate caloric restriction is enough to cause elevated triglycerides as I burn stored fat, even though the weight loss rate is fairly low?

  10. theorytopractice says:

    Great post, Richard, summing-up perfectly why I won't go out of my way to get a lipid profile done. I mean really, if my profile was found to be “out of whack” (relative to today's standards) what the hell would I change? My diet is near flawless as can be (given that I live in a modern society…if you can term the south “modern”, that is :) ), my body fat is rock bottom low, my functional strength and stamina are superb, I look 10 years younger and feel 20 years younger than what I actually am. What, would I go back to eating a SAD and working out 2+ hours a day? Yeah, right. Don't get me wrong, I am curious — not curious enough, though, to blow half a day jerking around in doctor's office to get some blood drawn; not to mention the expense. Too low a benefit-to-hassle ratio for me. I always figured that the next time I get drug into a clinic for a broken bone or stitches or some such (very likely, given my proclivity to sports-related “dings”), I'd go ahead and have a panel run. Make the most of an office visit, ya know? Otherwise, I'll continue on with my Paleo lifestyle, lipid panels (good or ill) be damned.

  11. rossbagley says:

    Most important thing for Joe to do is to confirm the test results with a second cholesterol test, preferably one that provides subfraction details.

  12. Jenny Light says:

    Richard said: “Cholesterol is not a problem to be managed, a diet of real foods is what is to be managed and the cholesterol numbers are the numbers”.

    Amen, my feelings exactly! In my almost 7 months of reading your blog, and others devoted to paleo type diets, I have been astounded at the obsessiveness folks have with numbers that really mean nothing.

    I make it my habit to stay as far away from doctors as I possibly can. My grandmother lived to be 97 and did the same (no pills except for a daily asprin). She had no clue if she had high cholesterol!

    I have always found it interesting that when a 100+ year old person is interviewed in the news media, alot of them mention that they “stay away from doctors”, and “don't take any pills”.

  13. timrangitsch says:

    Interesting stuff, and a new clarity in my nutrition from this. I'm the “Tim” in a couple of the above links. In the year + I've been “obsessing” on blood work/numbers games, to the point of paying up for an NMR Lipoprofile among other blood work after a 90 day 100% carnivore test diet…. well, I've pretty much gotten past all that now and realize that nutrition is really rather simple to sort out. Primal/Paleo living has its interpretations, but a very fundamental look at the basics of nutrition, work, rest, play, fasting has me living a lifestyle I'd not change for anything. It will be tough to never speak of or think of blood work numbers again, living among Conventional Wisdom such as we all do. But it is certainly fantastic to realize that the average Primal/Paleo practitioner has a far better grasp on heath and well being than most any CW doctor/dietician out there.

    Don't have more to add to the discussion rather than to confess feeling a bit silly to have had the “concerns” over cholesterol numbers. Stay Paleo/Primal people, read Free the Animal, Mark's Daily Apple, Protein Power, Hyperlipid, sooo many and stay ahead of CW.

    • Great Tim.

      And let's make sure and include Stephan at Whole Health Source and Don
      Matesz at Primal Wisdom.

      And, of course there are many excellent paleo / pral bloggers out
      there. I consider the above list the absolute essentials, others
      according to your time and preferences.

  14. donmatesz says:

    Great post Richard, exactly what I have tried to say in comments in the past. The managing numbers game plays into the hands of the pharmaceutical reps. They want you to pay attention to the ghosts (numbers) rather than the present (your own experience). That's how they get control. They create all the stories about the numbers to lead people into their trap.

  15. Charles1234 says:

    First off, i should confess that I'm a vegetarian. I haven't eaten meat for over a year. I have been following Dr. Joel Fuhrman's book “eat to live” and have basically followed a nutrient dense, plant based diet for the past 10 weeks. I've lost an incredible amount of weight in those 10 weeks (at least for me compared to previous attempts). I follow your blog because i really like your enthusiasm and passion for the subject of health and nutrituion. I think a healthy debate about health must surely include many different viewpoints. My vegetarian diet is not based on any political opinions (i believe in mans range and dominion etc) or even so much on the potential health benefits of a meat free diet. My decision is based on the fact that I just don't like the texture and taste of meat. Anyway, I enjoy your blog, enjoy especially the info about working out, and hope you don't mind if a vegetarian tags along for the ride. I guess you'd say I'm more on the “gatherer” side of the paleo diet.

  16. Though I'm no believer in the lipid hypothesis, I admit that I find ultra-high cholesterol like this to be a bit puzzling. As someone already mentioned, it seems like the norm among many of the traditional HG cultures is to have fairly low cholesterol. No one on this thread has yet mentioned the possibility of a thyroid issue, which could very well play a part in some of these high numbers. Stephan brought this out in the comments section of his latest post, noting that hypothyroidism downregulates LDL receptors and increases LDL. Anecdotally, I've seen this firsthand with my mother-in-law. She had high LDL that shot down with no other intervention than a correction of her hypothyroidism.

  17. I have noted the several comments about possible hypothyroidism. It does run in my family. I don't have any of the symptoms that my dad noticed when it hit him, but I will add a thyroid panel to my next blood work. What I suspect will happen is that I'll be in the low end of the “normal” range, and thus my Dr. will say “no problem”.

    I want to thank everyone for their comments.

    • timrangitsch says:

      Another couple simple ideas to look at in regards to John's jump up in cholesterol numbers. A big ribeye 15 hours before the blood draw, certainly could have an impact. And the doritos/chips intake “confession” could certainly as well. Not sure about the teriyaki marinades and such…..

      But my 90 day carnivore/0-carb test was to rule such dietary confounders out. I stuck to meat and water, cooked in animal fats. And my before/after carnivory blood draws were both on extended fasts (20+ hours). Don't know if that changes anything for John, but #1, I'd encourage ditching the chips/doritos and replacing with some paleo whole foods!

      AFTER that, perhaps thyroid? But it could be as simple as the Doritos and the ribeye with only 15hrs before the blood draw. AND, in keeping with this post, the cholesterol numbers tell us little to nothing about mortality.

      • “John” here … the Doritos were ***before*** Paleo. I had absolutely no grains after I started. I will probably do the next draw on a longer fast, and following a more moderate fat meal, just to be sure.

      • timrangitsch says:

        Gotcha, misread that bit. But do keep in mind, the older you get, the better a “high” lipid panel is! It is nice to get the knowledge that inflammation is the harbinger of cardiac doom….. not the lipids…..

  18. If you want to lower those triglycerides try folic acid and B12. There are lots of golod combined supplements out there!

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Read the original:  Is Cholesterol a Problem to Be Managed? [...]

  2. Is Cholesterol a Problem to Be Managed? - fengshou foods says:

    [...] Originally posted here:  Is Cholesterol a Problem to Be Managed? [...]

  3. [...] numbers matter if you’re simply eating Primal? Free the Animal opens up the discussion on whether or not we should pay attention to our lipid test results. (Also check out Richard’s latest before and after [...]

  4. [...] eating habits that would often tend to raise their cholesterol, and they'd stop looking at it as a problem to be managed – as companies like would would have them do out of ignorance and fear, all while the profits [...]

  5. Wed, Oct 7th – CrossFit Ireland - Great People. Great Fitness. says:

    [...] I Had My Way – Tommy Kono Is Cholesterol Something to Be Managed? – [...]

  6. [...] posted a lot about cholesterol and how and why I don't generally see it as a problem for most people on a good (paleo-like) diet. In other words, the diet is the problem causing the [...]