I've been 100% raw for nearly two and a half years now.

I have never actually had my blood work checked by a doctor. I'm thinking I might like to do that. Have any of you ever had this done? If so, what were the results?

Blood work is important to do especially if you are vegan.
B12 and other markers are good know at least once a year.

[renegadehealth.com]

More advanced analysis can be done at [www.spectracell.com]

I used to have blood work done (spectra test), but now l don't bother. Why?


Blood testing, a waste of time and money - rda's mean very little

Blood testing does not tell us much regardless of the tests. Why? Because people have different nutrient requirements that can WIDELY vary.

Eg 1: some people have been demonstrated to need up to 5 times the B vitamins compared with other people. See...some people are more prone to stress than others, but regardless, some people use more nutrients than others. Other people use less nutrients than others.

Eg 2: a bunch of people were getting the rda for B12, but when they were given extra B12 about 30% reported dramatic results in improved functioning.

See...getting the rda's for nutrients does NOT mean you won't come down with a nutritional deficiency disease.

Note: the only way you can know your nutrient requirements is through years of experimentation. You start with low nutrition and observe for weeks. Then you up the nutrients in the diet and observe for weeks. Then you keep on going up and up until your level of well being levels out, you do it will all types of foods and food processing methods that open up food matrix. BUT, to do this properly you need to be reasonably detoxed and have adjusted to the powers (frequencies) of raw foods. This can takes years, especially with a living foods diet (lots of reasons for this).

Blood tests can be a general guide for beginners confidence, but overall they don't tell us much at all. Getting 100% rda's does NOT guartantee your will be free of future nutritional deficiency diseasaes.

Also note: it is NOT the 100 rda's which is important, it is bioavailability of nutrients, nutrient synergy, one's utilisation of nutrients and one's individual nutrient requirements. This is especially true with vegan diets.

See...lots of things to take into account. Blood tests are basically nonsense regardless of whether they are blood spectra tests or not.

www.thesproutarian.com



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2014 08:49AM by The Sproutarian Man.

Blood test is not perfect but it is better than nothing to compare with.

In my humble opinion, blood tests can provide information, and information is good.

For example, a vegan might like to reassure him/herself or family/doctor/etc. that their diet is adequate for maintaining normal serum mineral levels.

(Blood test results are not necessarily associated with dietary reference intakes, such as RDA. The fact that we're all different is one reason why this is so. A "normal" blood test result is not predicated on "normal" food intake, but rather on healthy body function that is affected by our individual intake.)

Another example: maybe a person is overly food-restrictive due to fear of certain raw vegan foods; and as a result, their iron stores are way low. An open-minded person might consider including a greater variety of foods (maybe plus more exercise and/or an occasional fast to improve digestion, etc.) and see how they feel.

Or, a person might learn they are B12-deficient after many years of following an unproven B12 strategy. Again, an open-minded person might consider further options.

Or (this is interesting), even a raw vegan can find they have high cholesterol. Solution might be to have lower fat intake, and/or maybe just have more sunlight exposure so that more dietary fats are converted to Vitamin D (instead of cholesterol).

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

The point is that blood tests can provide one additional source of information to work with for improving diet and lifestyle, if a person wishes to do so.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2014 08:16PM by suncloud.

Great points Suncloud.
When I removed meat and fish from my diet, after 3 years I wanted to check my b12 level and the test was a good indicator.
I was in better health than before but I just wanted to make sure that I was not missing any nutrients. And all of the markers were fine and the doctor even said keep doing what you are doing, it is working. He did not even know I was on raw food diet.

Thanks for sharing your experience CommonSenseRaw!

"Or (this is interesting), even a raw vegan can find they have high cholesterol. Solution might be to have lower fat intake, and/or maybe just have more sunlight exposure so that more dietary fats are converted to Vitamin D (instead of cholesterol)."

There are a lot of myths about cholesterol...

For one, what's important is not the LDL number, it's the HDL/LDL ratio. You can have what is considered very high LDL but if your HDL is high enough to provide a healthy ratio, you are not at risk of any health issues. Two, cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease, inflammation does. And not too many people know about this, but donating blood 1-2x per year can significantly lower the risk of stroke and heart attack for those with unhealthy cholesterol ratios.

In regards to blood testing, like TSM said, it's often a waste of time. You can have nutrients flying around your blood all day but if they're not being absorbed and utilized by your cells, it doesn't matter. If you have low levels of certain nutrients in your blood, chances are your cells have even lower levels, which is what matters. I would love for low-fat raw vegans to publicize their CELLULAR levels of EPA/DHA, selenium, zinc, iron, and iodine. Serum mineral levels aren't important, cellular mineral levels are. Plus, from my knowledge, blood tests are not individualized, they test for a "healthy range" of nutrients to see if you are in that range or not, which is likely based off RDA's. But yes, a blood test can tell you information in the sense that if you don't even have enough of a certain nutrient in your blood, then you can be assured that you don't have enough of that certain nutrient in your cells.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2014 09:30PM by jtprindl.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I
> would love for low-fat raw vegans to publicize
> their CELLULAR levels of EPA/DHA, selenium, zinc,
> iron, and iodine. Serum mineral levels aren't
> important, cellular mineral levels are. Plus, from
> my knowledge, blood tests are not individualized,
> they test for a "healthy range" of nutrients to
> see if you are in that range or not, which is
> likely based off RDA's.

There was one girl who went low fat high fruit. She posted her results and was happy because she had higher EPA/DHA than the U.S population who is estimated to be highly deficient. I wrote to her and suggested she does not want to be comparing her results to a population who is likely highly deficient, and l said her results were not much higher than the population that is considered highly deficient. I then brought up the science and suggested she exercise more caution because we don't want low fat eaters to be getting mislead and a false sense of security etc etc. I also went on how comparing averages is not a good idea and all the rest of it.

She also foolishly boasted that her omega 6's were low which helped her conversion to EPA/DHA which are likely very low anyway. I said that fatty acids are important for brain function and we never want to risk low numbers for any of the fats. They key is adequate amounts of fats in a good ratio with a good conversion to long chain omega 3's. The video was way over simplified, and this is how people get foolish ideas in their heads and under go the very low fat path. Another mistake we make is that we often trust in big names in health as experts, but big names can be targets of system corruption....they can be manipulated and some may not even know it.






>But yes, a blood test can
> tell you information in the sense that if you
> don't even have enough of a certain nutrient in
> your blood, then you can be assured that you don't
> have enough of that certain nutrient in your
> cells.


Yes, blood tests can be a good starting point, but lets not get a false sense of security with it.

www.thesproutarian.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2014 09:51PM by The Sproutarian Man.

"She also foolishly boasted that her omega 6's were low which helped her conversion to EPA/DHA which are likely very low anyway. I said that fatty acids are important for brain function and we never want to risk low numbers for any of the fats. They key is adequate amounts of fats in a good ratio with a good conversion to long chain omega 3's. The video was way over simplified, and this is how people get foolish ideas in their heads and under go the very low fat path. Another mistake we make is that we often trust in big names in health as experts, but big names can be targets of system corruption....they can be manipulated and some may not even know it."


The way I look at people like this is... you can't help people who don't want to be helped. I think there are many people who would never admit they were wrong (ego) but secretly behind the scenes will start making dietary changes, whether it's because they snapped out of it and started looking at the real data or because long-term, they started to feel the negative effects of their diet.

One of my neighbor's, who is a very, very smart man and developed many million-dollar machines for the company he worked at, developed early onset dementia and/or Alzheimer's and also has osteoporosis. Naturally, I decided to help and was thanked by his wife earlier today because he has made significant improvements both physically and mentally over the past few weeks. However, some of the recommendations I make, he doesn't want any part of it for whatever reason. That's fine, but I can only do so much. At the end of the day, people still have to be willing to make the commitment necessary for healing.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> The way I look at people like this is... you can't
> help people who don't want to be helped. I think
> there are many people who would never admit they
> were wrong (ego) but secretly behind the scenes
> will start making dietary changes, whether it's
> because they snapped out of it and started looking
> at the real data or because long-term, they
> started to feel the negative effects of their
> diet.
>
> One of my neighbor's, who is a very, very smart
> man and developed many million-dollar machines for
> the company he worked at, developed early onset
> dementia and/or Alzheimer's and also has
> osteoporosis. Naturally, I decided to help and was
> thanked by his wife earlier today because he has
> made significant improvements both physically and
> mentally over the past few weeks. However, some of
> the recommendations I make, he doesn't want any
> part of it for whatever reason. That's fine, but I
> can only do so much. At the end of the day, people
> still have to be willing to make the commitment
> necessary for healing.


Yes, as Mr Kearns often says, many people are not able to help themselves because it is part of the karma they take on in this life. Ego and denial are all part of this.

Not able to give up smoking and drugs is also karma that people take on. Failing on raw diets is also karma that people take on. Things can take time to fall into place, awareness needs to happen, and awareness can be many things such as knowlegde and a levelof spiritual standing. None of this stuff is bad, it is what is needed to create memories so we are brought to a certain point in creating awareness in future times. Experiences create memories which create awareness which willultimately lead to empowerment if we minimise distractions of the system.

I know l speak vague here, but there is much power behind these seemingly vague words. These general words can apply to many many things.

www.thesproutarian.com

I worked with a lady who did live blood analysis. Once omg, I saw her slip and blood squirted all over the video monitor. She didnt pay me, she said it was , that I was learning from her. So my lawyer handed her papers and she paid me immediately. Rhonda! That was her name.

I would love to own a ten thousand dollar microscope and take Dr. Robert O Youngs, Live blood analysis course for ten grand too. I would. I would love that if I had that money to throw.

I had a raw food friend who got her blood looked at and the lady told her she needs to stop eating fruit so my friend did all greens for two weeks. All the microforms or fungus in her blood. Or something.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2014 01:21AM by coconutcream.

The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
>
> Yes, blood tests can be a good starting point, but
> lets not get a false sense of security with it.

So true. For example, a person's serum calcium can be within the normal range, even if the diet is calcium-deficient. This is because our bodies prioritize calcium in the blood over calcium in the bones. Calcium is a very important electrolyte. So before allowing our blood to become low in calcium, our bodies will pull calcium out of the bones and put it into the blood. Result: normal serum calcium, but not necessarily enough calcium to maintain healthy bones.

My understanding is that jtprindl is correct about the importance of the cholesterol ratio. Currently, the cholesterol ratio of interest is total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol. So in other words, if your total cholesterol is 204 and your HDL is 68, your cholesterol ratio is 3.0, which would be considered OK - despite total cholesterol being a little high by itself.

Total cholesterol comes from LDL + HDL + 20% of triglycerides.

Probably, if we're going to have blood tests, it's a good idea to know something ourselves about how to interpret them! And we might keep a record over time to help determine the effect (if any) of changes in diet or lifestyle.

Cococream, live blood analysis? I'll have to look that up! Dr. Young sounds vaguely familiar, but something about him sounds a little suspicious. Ten grand for a live blood analysis course?

I know if anyone told me to give up fruit, it just wouldn't happen. Maybe someone else could benefit, but I don't think it would benefit me, no matter what condition I had. Just can't even imagine it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2014 02:12AM by suncloud.

Wow! There's tons of input here.

Thanks CommonSenseRaw. That website told me a few things I didn't know about the possible deficiencies in a vegan diet. I don't know though even if I were to be tested and found myself to be outside of the norm, if I would worry too much.

TSM, I think I feel as you do. I know how the "norms" are established. They represent a population that subsist on the Standard American Diet so I can't accept the limits as being representative of ideal health. I also agree that one body does not function exactly as another so I wonder how much importance should I really place on the results. Still, I'd like to know. I'm one of those people who just like tests and this is a kind of test to me.

I agree Suncloud that there is useful information to be gotten. Why not? And of course I know it's up to me how I wish to interpret it. Fortunately, here in Canada, getting blood work done is a "no fee" procedure so I could play the game for free.

This is a bit of an aside but this is what brought the whole question to my mind in the first place.

Yesterday, I went into the pharmacy and checked my blood pressure. It was 91/60 and my pulse was 58 b.p.m. IMO, that's awesome but in medical terms, I am bradycardic and hypotensive. I've actually seen my blood pressure as low as 80/40 and I worked hard, non-stop and with lots of energy to spare. I'm sure the doctor would want to prescribe something though if he saw that!!

Sorry everyone but I am no good at copying quotes to my post. One day I'll have to read Prana's instructions and get it figured out...

Anyway, I can do this...

jtprindl wrote:

"cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease, inflammation does".


I don't claim in anyway to be an expert on heart disease or cholesterol but I'm pretty sure of this - cholesterol is the culprit in narrowing the lumen of the arteries until blood flow is so significantly diminished that a person strokes or has a heart attack. Cholesterol builds up as plaque along the arterial walls and reduces blood flow even to the degree of 90% reduction. And people don't even know they have the problem! That's why heart disease is called "the silent killer".

I once did a required presentation in class on vegetarianism and I brought in a jar of fat my friend kept by his stove so I could do some Show and Tell. Everyone in the class knew what it was and they all agreed they don't pour it down the sink because it plugs the pipes.

I went on to explain that your arteries are also a piping system and over a long period of time of consuming this stuff, a similar thing results in the arteries.

Years later, the instructor of the class saw me in town. She told me she would never forget I'm a vegetarian. She said she'd been lecturing one day when her vision went blurry. She figured it would clear up in a few moments but it didn't.

When she went to the doctor, it was discovered her carotid artery was nearly closed off so, of course, they did surgery and reamed it out. A few weeks afterward, she was scheduled to see her MD for follow up.

His question to her was, "how would you feel about becoming a vegetarian"?

"I don't claim in anyway to be an expert on heart disease or cholesterol but I'm pretty sure of this - cholesterol is the culprit in narrowing the lumen of the arteries until blood flow is so significantly diminished that a person strokes or has a heart attack. Cholesterol builds up as plaque along the arterial walls and reduces blood flow even to the degree of 90% reduction. And people don't even know they have the problem! That's why heart disease is called "the silent killer"."

Cholesterol doesn't narrow the arteries, that's a myth, inflammation does. When blood becomes too thick, it abrades the walls of the arteries, causing inflammation. The inflammation draws the cholesterol because the cholesterol is trying to help by covering the abrasion. Cholesterol is a response to cardiovascular inflammation. It can be a predictor of heart disease because it means you are inflamed but it is NOT the cause. Neither cholesterol or saturated fat has anything to do with heart disease. Unhealthy cooked animal fats like trans fatty acids will cause lots of inflammation and can lead to heart disease, but not raw, plant-based fats.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2014 04:56AM by jtprindl.

I get my blood tested through my midwife, for this or that bs. Always turns out fine. She says she wants to see if I am anemic. They are about 40 dollars each test. I do not think I have ever had a bad blood test.

Raw4ever Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow! There's tons of input here.
>
> Thanks CommonSenseRaw. That website told me a few
> things I didn't know about the possible
> deficiencies in a vegan diet. I don't know though
> even if I were to be tested and found myself to be
> outside of the norm, if I would worry too much.
>
> TSM, I think I feel as you do. I know how the
> "norms" are established. They represent a
> population that subsist on the Standard American
> Diet so I can't accept the limits as being
> representative of ideal health. I also agree that
> one body does not function exactly as another so I
> wonder how much importance should I really place
> on the results. Still, I'd like to know. I'm one
> of those people who just like tests and this is a
> kind of test to me.
>
> I agree Suncloud that there is useful information
> to be gotten. Why not? And of course I know it's
> up to me how I wish to interpret it. Fortunately,
> here in Canada, getting blood work done is a "no
> fee" procedure so I could play the game for free.
>
> This is a bit of an aside but this is what brought
> the whole question to my mind in the first place.
>
> Yesterday, I went into the pharmacy and checked my
> blood pressure. It was 91/60 and my pulse was 58
> b.p.m. IMO, that's awesome but in medical terms, I
> am bradycardic and hypotensive. I've actually seen
> my blood pressure as low as 80/40 and I worked
> hard, non-stop and with lots of energy to spare.
> I'm sure the doctor would want to prescribe
> something though if he saw that!!


I think you should be concerned but not worried about this type of blood pressure. It is good that you feel good though! If you are on this diet I would suggest wheatgrass and or some kind of algae.

Fully Raw Christina….another 80-10-10 person headed for the scrapheap?

I was shocked when l saw Christina’s appalling blood results. She looks healthy on the outside but it looks like the dreaded high carb high fructose low fat diet is slowly catching up with her. I was most disappointed with the doctor because he doesn’t make mention of many things which are clearly alarm bells. Another 80-10-10 girl also had highly questionable blood work also.


[www.youtube.com]


Comments on Christina’s highly questionable blood work

Iron levels are on the low side of normal. Hmmm, contrary to what this doctor says it is certainly not ideal or good for reasons l won’t go into right now.

Now to the real issues, the lipids.

1. Christina has very low LDL cholesterol, but excessively low LDL is linked to various health problems related to brain functioning, hormone production and serotonin. When you read the research there is cause for concern.

2. Christina has low HDL, and even though she has a low fat diet which negates potential effects for CVD, she has a decreased ability for the body to transport lipids needed for brain function and various other roles. This is cause for concern and signs of the wheels starting to fall off with this dangerous diet.


3. Christina’s total cholesterol is very low. Once again, the abundance of medical literature raises grave concern over this problem, namely the association with mental imbalance and early death. Of course much of the medical literature on vegan sites and in the mainstream will go contrary to this conclusion and no public mention will ever bring up the new literature which talks about these problems because the drug companies want to sell drug lowering medication and will consequently keep the doctors in the dark about the more recent findings, but these results of Christina are major cause for concern.


4. Now…another tell tale sign that the wheels are falling off for Christina, she has dyslipidemia (high triglyceride levels) likely from a high fructose, high carb low fat diet. This is really the red flag, and when you put all the results in context l would say Christina is heading for a downward slide unless she changes a few things.

Fructose overconsumption causes dyslipidemia and ectopic lipid deposition in healthy subjects with and without a family history of type 2 diabetes

Kim-Anne Lê, Michael Ith
[ajcn.nutrition.org]


I want Christina to see another doctor who will give her a wake up call, because quite frankly, l think she needs it. I could post medical paper after medical paper which will raise alarm bells about Christina’s results, but it would take all day to do.

I also wonder how the low HDL has affected Christina’s fatty acid profile. It would be interesting to know her EPA/DHA scores also.

Once again, much of the medical literature released to doctors and the public on lipids and cholesterol is highly flawed and does not tell the true story behind what is going on. The peer reviewed medical literature now clearly states on numerous occasions that the drug companies and food industry has paid for and suppressed info so only dubious literature supporting the low fat low cholesterol diet is in the public domain. There seems to have been lots of lobbying by low fat food industry and drug companies selling cholesterol/lipid lowering drugs as the dominant players pushing their dubious agendas.

Hey….you think l make this up? Ugh ugh. I used to support low fat as a brainwashed vegan puppet, but then l spend 4 months reading the medical literature and was SHOCKED!!! I didn’t just read 2 or 3 studies, l read 200+ studies for and against high and low fat diets, and l can confidently say there IS a problem.

Some people can do well on low fat, but given Christina’s results it is highly questionable whether she will be able to sustain on this diet. I look at this in a cold and clinical context and are going solely by the figures and the literature.I also put it to people that Christina’s doctor may not be aware of the literature of which l speak because he is getting info from the drug reps which support their low fat low cholesterol agenda. Oh yes folks…this is not something we can put under the carpet.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2014 10:11PM by The Sproutarian Man.

"I was shocked when l saw Christina’s appalling blood results. She looks healthy on the outside but it looks like the dreaded high carb high fructose low fat diet is slowly catching up with her. I was most disappointed with the doctor because he doesn’t make mention of many things which are clearly alarm bells. Another 80-10-10 girl also had highly questionable blood work also."

I saw that video a few weeks ago, tried to tell her via another social network that not only do blood tests reveal little and that her low iron likely means she is deficient in cellular iron, but that she didn't even show results for the most important vegan deficiencies... EPA/DHA, selenium, zinc, iodine. She also allegedly exercises very heavily and still has concerning results. This should be a red flag for anyone who hasn't read the literature to start reading it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2014 10:41PM by jtprindl.

The thing that is frustrating is that some people look up to Kristina as an expert but all she really is, is a health coach who talks about the benefits of raw foods.. basic stuff. Don't get me wrong, that's great and it's awesome that she's helping get people off processed, SAD food... but unfortunately that's the extent of her work. She takes high-quality pictures of good-looking raw dishes which draws people in but she's not too educated when it comes to health and nutrition, and this can lead to problems for others in the long-run. I remember she was making a raw food recipe that was essentially ALL figs and dates (crazy amounts of fructose) and she said not to worry about the sugar because it's from fruit. Utter nonsense.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She also allegedly exercises very
> heavily and still has concerning results. This
> should be a red flag for anyone who hasn't read
> the literature to start reading it.


My thoughts exactly. She apparently exercises heavily and is still getting these highly questionable results. This raises big alarm bells.

What scares me is that she is a raw food leader taught from the `raw food 101'school and she has a big following. I would like her to see a few doctors, get a wake up call, get some education from Dr Gabriel and Dr Brian to broaden her perspective on health and then move on from there.

Christina has a big responsibility to her followers so she needs to get on top of this stuff.

It is so easy to criticize her blood results but can you post your own to see how you compare with her, at least she has the courage to show where she is.

Maybe it will be a good exercise for all of us to post our blood results with a summary of our diet to see what is working or not.

All of those eating the best diet, the sprouts, greens, seaweeds, the sun gazing, please show us how healthy you are from your blood results.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2014 03:06PM by CommonSenseRaw.

CommonSenseRaw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is so easy to criticize her blood results but
> can you post your own to see how you compare with
> her, at least she has the courage to show where
> she is.
>
> Maybe it will be a good exercise for all of us to
> post our blood results with a summary of our diet
> to see what is working or not.
>
> All of those eating the best diet, the sprouts,
> greens, seaweeds, the sun gazing, please show us
> how healthy you are from your blood results.


I'll tell you exactly what my diet consists of... sprout/grass juices, algae's, sprouted nuts/seeds, coconut, a little bit of fruit, and various super foods. I don't really eat vegetables because I replace them with green sprouts which are far superior, but also because store-bought veggies are rarely, if ever, fresh. But I would have no problem growing my own kale (which according to David Wolfe doesn't really have a lot of oxalates, despite the popular belief it does) or lettuce, picking it and juicing it immediately. As far as blood tests go... if I was going to spend money to see my results, it's not going to be on a blood test. I want to know what's going on in my cells and eventually I will get one done. And even if my cellular results are great, it doesn't mean I couldn't benefit from more of certain nutrients. We're all unique individuals. For example, one person may function optimally with 100% RDA magnesium, others may need double that.

Fully Raw Kristina brought a film crew in with her doctor and hugs him calling them friends? " I trust my doctor"

My 3 year old watches her videos. I do too in background, she has good ideas..but its my 3 year old who really relates to her. Her videos are professional. She is a youtube star for sure. Like those girls who paint cats and owls on their nails and show you how to open up these plastic eggs covered in clay with toys inside. You are like, how is it these little girls make such professional looking videos with great lighting and music and special effects and HD quality..?
And millions of views overnight.

" Ridiculously good" the doctor says. Surprising to me, he says vitamin b is good. AMAZINGLY GOOD VALUE... " Your b12 is GREATER THAN MEASURABLE"..

AWESOME I AM SO HONORED TO HAVE YOU AS A FRIEND!! Dr Garth the vegan doctor. Here is his facebook!!

So cute!





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2014 05:11PM by coconutcream.

CommonSenseRaw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is so easy to criticize her blood results but
> can you post your own to see how you compare with
> her, at least she has the courage to show where
> she is.
>


It is not an attack on the person,l bring this up because myself and other people are interested in the way raw food diets effect people. Now l understand that Christina's results were based on non fasting levels and her triglycerides are probably higher than they would be. So why get a blood test when you have not been fasting all night...kind of defeats the purpose, no? And, it also brings up the thought that Christina was probably up in the middle of the night munching on fruit....wow. I know she works hard, but eating fruit in the middle of the night??

I wonder why she never got zinc and the long chain omega 3 fatty acids tested. + she is on the low side of normal for iron, but that is not so good for a raw vegan imo because her diet would be extremely high in manganese and copper which is prone to reducing zinc absorption, so she needs more iron to buffer against manganese and copper. To me, things seem alittle messy with the blood work.

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] - Relation of triglyceride levels, fasting and nonfasting, to fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease

"Greater ease of obtaining nonfasting than fasting measurements, greater prevalence of hypertriglyceridemia with nonfasting than fasting values, and similarly increased risk with each indicate that nonfasting TG levels may be more useful than fasting ones for risk stratification."

Wouldn't non-fasting be more important considering that is what her triglycerides will be the majority, if not all the time? I wouldn't say she's at risk for a heart attack now but heavy exercise plus lots of fructose can strain the heart as she gets older, no? And even if she stopped exercising as much when she got older, the fructose would have an even greater effect on her heart (plus liver). Seems like a double-edged sword in the long-run and this doesn't even take into account the low levels of EPA/DHA, zinc, selenium, and iron. Women have higher conversion rates of long-chain omega-3's, though, so she'll likely be in far better shape in this regard than if she was a man. Also, since she's still having her period, I think that lowers triglycerides so as she gets older that benefit will disappear as well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2014 11:07PM by jtprindl.

Also, after women stop having their periods, HDL tends to decrease, which could further complicate things for Kristina as she gets older.

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

"CONCLUSION:

HDL-C is an independent risk factor for coronary heart disease. This study favours the view that decrease in estradiol level and associated decrease in HDL-C seen in postmenopausal women may be responsible for the increased risk of coronary heart disease after menopause."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2014 11:23PM by jtprindl.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Cholesterol doesn't narrow the arteries, that's a
> myth, inflammation does. When blood becomes too
> thick, it abrades the walls of the arteries,
> causing inflammation. The inflammation draws the
> cholesterol because the cholesterol is trying to
> help by covering the abrasion. Cholesterol is a
> response to cardiovascular inflammation. It can be
> a predictor of heart disease because it means you
> are inflamed but it is NOT the cause. Neither
> cholesterol or saturated fat has anything to do
> with heart disease. Unhealthy cooked animal fats
> like trans fatty acids will cause lots of
> inflammation and can lead to heart disease, but
> not raw, plant-based fats.

Thanks jtprindl but I can't find anything anywhere to support the idea that thick blood abrades the arterial walls. It raises some questions in my mind though and perhaps you could direct me to where I could read more on that.

As for cholesterol NOT being the cause of heart disease, I think you're quite narrow in your usage of the word "cause".

If there was a heavy rain and the pressure of a turbulent river cracked the dam and the dam broke and the river flooded the city and many people died, would the cause of their deaths be the rain, or would it be the crack in the dam, or would it be the river?

Or might it be all of the above?

It could be debated which of those three forces is the most significant but if you remove any one of them from the equation, you will get a different result.

Quite simply, there are primary causes, secondary causes, tertiary causes, etc. If something is a contributing factor, it is reasonable to consider it a cause, be it direct or indirect.