View Full Version : Study on raw foods & high cholesterol
Sharon in Colorado
12-18-2005, 12:09 AM
Did some googling and found this:
12-18-2005, 08:03 AM
"This study indicates that consumption of a strict raw food diet lowers plasma total cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations, but also lowers serum HDL cholesterol and increases tHcy concentrations due to vitamin B-12 deficiency. "
Is that good or bad??? I understand that it is good to have lower cholesterol, but I don't understand the medical terminology above. I put some nutrional yeast in all of my smoothies, would I still have a B-12 deficiency? They sound like all raw people have the deficieny.
12-18-2005, 08:38 AM
Actually it says only 38% have the deficiency. I wonder what they consider deficient. Is it just a number on a blood test or did the 38% actually show signs of the deficiency? Hmmmm.
12-18-2005, 09:41 AM
The problem is that b12 deficiency can lead to serious and permenant problems so why take the risk. I supplement.
12-18-2005, 10:37 AM
Sport, which supplement do you use, please? Thank you.
I thought Nutritional yeast was high in B12.
12-18-2005, 11:04 AM
I'm confused. :confused:
12-18-2005, 12:45 PM
Thanks for this link. I have a friend, 33 yr old competitve Bodybuilder, in shape visually, who has very High Cholesterol. She refuses to take the meds. Recently I have been cautiously talking to her about Raw, and her other dearest friend is now 100 % raw after a trip to Peru that left her ill from parasites. This is a pure conincidence that her two friend (that are not friends) went Raw !! Poor dear..My friend is not in favor of the Raw diet so I am really wondering if I should forward it too her or not? ...hmmmm....I guess I will share, nothing to lose there !
12-18-2005, 04:08 PM
The B12 I take is sold by a UK company called Quest. It has nothing but B12 and is labelled suitable for vegans. I have been told that it is being withdrawn from the market because the dose is too high (500 micrograms) so I will have to look for another.
12-18-2005, 04:26 PM
Thank you, Sport. :)
12-18-2005, 04:39 PM
Okay, I'll try to use my medical knowledge to decipher this....Basically what the article is saying is that eating a raw diet will decrease both the bad and good cholesterol (that's the HDL that was mentioned), now as for the THcy...THcy stands for total homocysteine. elevated THcy concentrations is associated with increased cardiovascular disease. Folate, Riboflavin, vitamins B-6 and B-12 help to metabolise homocysteine, what the article is saying is that the people they tested had elevated THcy because they were deficient in B-12, so the homocysteine wasn't being completely metabolized.
However, they didn't relate that SAD dieters have just as many instances of B-12 deficiency as raw foodists...so it's not something to be too overly concerned about...if you are...take a B-12 supplement.
Hope this cleared up any confusion!
12-18-2005, 04:40 PM
Here's another good one: http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/131/3/733?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=raw+food+diet&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1134944443394_2754&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1&journalcode=nutrition
12-18-2005, 06:33 PM
Did you know that published scientific research of the last century "proved" that high-meat diet is good for you? Some 50 years later we hear, from the same source (published scientific research) that high-meat diets are linked to cancer. Just because someone published something, it does not mean that it is an undisputable truth (Note the common use of probabilistic terms in published literature). Nor should it be something that we completely base our choices on, instead of using our common sense, or by observing the nature. In fact, the latter sources are what we can learn from the most. Have you ever seen wild vegan animals in need of supplements? Why one thinks that changing their diet from cooked food diet (depleted of nutrients, making us sick and tired) to raw food diet (full of freshness and bio-energy, which transforms us from sick to healhy people) would make us suddenly defficient in anything at all? I think that the change if the opposite direction would be a reason to worry.
Note that all statistics, daily requirements etc are based on data obtained from studies on cooked foodists. It is well known fact (referenced in published research) that raw foodists exist who despite having lower than acceptable levels, are of perfect health, and show no signs of deficiency. Perhaps some old numbers are in need of a little bit of recalculation? Don't hold your breath. ;)
12-18-2005, 07:03 PM
Gosia...LOVE what you wrote!!
Okay, so we're not really all that concerned with charts and numbers, but my husband (who isn't ALL raw, but MOSTLY raw) just went for a full check up and here are his results (I think they're pretty good...but maybe someone here **Raw_Medic** can let me know exactly):
(This is based on mg/ol)
Value (or what his is)=94
Low (what is considered to be low)=65
High (what is considered to be high)=99
Sharon in Colorado
12-18-2005, 07:06 PM
Thank you Ursula! I didn't know that about the homocysteine.
I too found it interesting that they noted there were 38% of them with low B-12, yet how many were low B-12 on placebo (who were on a cooked SAD)? If they had a placebo study, that is.
Rawkinlocs was your hubby's TC (total cholesterol) 113? If so, that is excellent!
My August TC was 365...2 days ago the reading was 293, which was 72 points lower, however it is still very high. I definately have to add cardio and subtract fat now.
12-19-2005, 10:09 AM
Rawkinlocs, your hubby's numbers are GREAT! Wow, that is very impressive... I can't imagine myself having readings that good on all the cholesterol figures! Congratulations and with a total cholesterol of only 113... well 150 or under is almost a guarantee of him not having any heart disease of any form. Wonderful!
12-19-2005, 10:33 AM
Thanks Sharon and Cinnamon for confirming that his numbers are good. The only one the doctor seemed to express a little concern about were the Triglycerides. Any thoughts on that?
12-19-2005, 11:05 AM
I believe one of the biggest influences on Triglycerides is exercise. But the lower the number the better and it looks like his number was very low. His diet being so good I can't imagine it would be a problem... listen to me sounding like Dr. Cinnamon! Ha! But I do think his numbers are great overall and thought the Triglycerides looked great too. From what I just read online I don't understand why his doctor expressed any concern.
12-19-2005, 11:58 AM
I was surprised when I got a blood test recently that had my cholestrol at 200! I've been raw since July, and have also done the Dr. Schulze 30-day detox. I am doing it again now because I think a liver cleanse is the only thing that might change these figures. I was vegetarian, mostly vegan before raw, and get enough exercise. I was expecting a lower cholesterol reading due to my (mostly green smoothie) raw diet.
Sharon in Colorado
12-19-2005, 12:03 PM
Rawkinlocs, does he think the tri's are too low? Did you guys ask him what are problems related to having too low tri's? I can't imagine. It looks like it is within the range.
Oh man, I'm jealous. If he needs any cholesterol from me, I'd be happy to donate half my liver, lol.
12-19-2005, 02:00 PM
I'm curious why he was concerned about his Triglycerides...that's an awesome number!
12-19-2005, 02:10 PM
Well, I just called my husband and asked him...he didn't actually hear from the doctor any concern - see, our medical plan allows him to log into his account online and get any test results that way. He says the Triglyceride section was "flagged" as being low or too low...if you notice, his number is below what is considered to be low. So, I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing. But for one reason or another, that was the only section that was "flagged"...thus his assumption that there must have been some concern.
12-19-2005, 02:15 PM
I did some research, I'm wondering if he's not more worried about his LDL than triglycerides...I can't find anything that talks about having triglycerides too low...and I've never heard of that as a concern before. however, if the LDL is too low that can be a problem...the LDL ("good" cholesterol) is used in all functions and is used in cell structure (it's what helps keep your cells the shape they're suppose to be). And really his triglycerides aren't low, but close to the considered norm/low. Really all of his numbers are the picture of health!
12-24-2005, 07:18 AM
raw_medic, its the other way around, LDL is bad and HDL is good. its good that his LDL is so low
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.