Hello Beautiful!

It looks like you're new to The Community. If you'd like to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Cholesterol too low danger?

Now that I have been on RAW for a month, My cholesterol has dropped from 270 to 105! YES!

Would you believe a homeopathic doctor said 105 is too low.

Anyone know if this is this true?


  • MeditatingMeditating Raw Newbie

    Is that your total cholesterol or your LDL? (I assume total since your previous number was 270.) If it is your total cholesterol, that is really low or maybe you have developed that mutant HDL big pharma is trying to synthesize and bring to market. If it is only your LDL, then you are where conventional doctors think you need to be to insure your liklihood of developing further heart disease remains low. Your conventional doctor must be thrilled!

    Conventional and natural physicians seem to be taking a different stand on cholesterol. I have read articles where natural doctors think elevated cholesterol is symptomatic of another problem so lowering it just masks the symptoms where if you find the cause and treat it the symptom will disappear – therefore indicating that the treatment is working. Another school of thought usually entertained by naturopaths is that cholesterol is a natural response to aging as it helps putty weakened areas in the blood vessel. There are a few other ideas too.

    I have to admit I am concerned with the conventional approach, which seems to have more to do with pushing drugs. Under the model of conventional medicine if a practice is deemed the standard of care then those doctors who do not adopt it are committing malpractice and subject to being sued or losing their license if they aren’t on board. It seems very coercive to me especially when you look at all the profit incentives for doing so. On the other hands, you can look at arteries where blood flow is clearly restricted by placque and if you don’t know the cause of the buildup you damn sure better get rid of it.

    I don’t believe cholesterol is responsible for all heart disease. That obviously isn’t true because 50% of people who have heart attacks have normal cholesterol. On the other side of the argument, heart attacks can happen for varied reasons so it makes sense high cholesterol would account for certain types of heart attacks, like those brought out by blocked arteries due to cholesterol build up or a piece of renegade cholesterol that detaches from inside a blood vessel.

    If you have only been eating raw for 2 weeks you will be shocked in how you feel in 3 months. It took me about 6 months to get to the point where I couldn’t stand eating any kind of SAD food (except I do sneak some raw cheese occasionally.) I also eat a cooked item as much as three times weekly. I haven’t bought into that must-be-100%-raw thing either. I love my udon noodles with fresh pesto sauce (basil, olive oil, pine nuts, garlic, lemon juice). Nectar of the gods.

    I am so happy to hear your good news. I read your profile and that all sounds wonderful. I know you are both relieved and proud and you should be. Keep up the good work.

  • springleafspringleaf Raw Newbie

    Read the China study, I can’t remember numbers off the top of my head, but when they measures cholesterol levels in rural chinese they were about 50 i think. His opinion is that the lower the level the better and is only western doctors who are so used to seeing really high levels that think levels like 105 are too low. Congratulations on you score tho, thats wonderful!

  • springleafspringleaf Raw Newbie

    Have just read your profile! incredible! Your results should go on the news so that everyone else can see what a difference they could make so easily!

  • Springleaf, you took the words right out of my mouth. I have my China Study book handy, and it says that the average for the rural Chinese population (those eating traditonal diets) was 127, compared to the average American, whose cholesterol is 217. He does mention a couple of groups that averaged 80 and 90, respectively. Typically, doctors believe anything in the 150 range is pretty good, but that is based on people eating a healthier than average SAD diet. I see no reason why someone who is dedicated to the raw vegan lifestyle wouldn’t have a much lower total, since no cholesterol is ingested from animal products and saturated fat intake is likely very low. The cholesterol levels in the body would be solely what the body produces naturally.

  • I think the lowest recorded are in the eighties in The China Study. I think under 150 total is good. I think I read that some people, when they get really low, like in the 110s, might get depression more easily…..however that is measured. I’m not saying I agree, just saying I read that.

    ETA: I like how I began each sentence with “I think.”

  • I have heard of a too-low cholesterol being dangerous, specifically because it is necessary for the transmission of electrical signals in the brain. I found an article that (I think) addresses this in the Physiological Society Journal:


    I will forward this article along with a more broad question about cholesterol and synapse performance to a health care provider friend and see what she thinks…

  • pianissimapianissima Raw Newbie

    this is unrelated, but i also read your profile… wondering how you were “taught” to eat raw @ CHI. what is their philosophy?

    also, i concur with others… i keep saying this, but i’m wondering where all these “healthy” people are that they test to make out averages. how many really healthy people do you know? like, how many of your friends never get sick, don’t have bags under their eyes, and sweat daily from vigorous exercise?

    you sound like you are doing great… but is there a reason you would believe this naturopath? are you feeling imbalanced in any way?

    meditating—i’m of the same opinion abotu 100%. it’s more stress than it’s worth. i realized my main problem was with moderation. i like being “flowtarian” =)

  • Also, when someone’s body doesn’t make enough cholesterol, this is due to a problem within their body, not a “veganism” problem.

  • At what level is cholesterol considered low enough to be detrimental to health? Does anyone know of a concrete total number or range? If those people in the 80 or 90 range in rural China were functioning perfectly well, then isn’t joliett’s naturopath overreacting quite a bit and relying on statistics more than what he or she is observing from joliett? As long as joliett eats a well balanced (and I stress the concept of balance) diet, whether it’s a raw vegan one, a vegan one or an omnivorous one, a low total cholesterol count should be deemed to be “normal” based on the individual’s overall health. The concept of “normal” in North American and Western medicine kind of goes out the window when the test subjects are typical SAD eaters.

Sign In or Register to comment.