http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2608 A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:55:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2608#comment-41709 Jerry Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:54 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2608#comment-41709 Flax may not be quite as simple a substitute as it may appear. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=9028717&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_docsum" rel="nofollow">Fish oil may be superior in bringing down LDLs</a>, as one paper that I found suggest. I looked in the first place because I know that while both flax and fish oil may have omega-3s, the specific omega-3's in question are different. Linolenic acid from flax must be metabolized to form longer fatty acid chains that the body will use, such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docosahexaenoic_acid" rel="nofollow">DHA</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eicosapentaenoic_acid" rel="nofollow">EPA</a>. This enzyme, as I recall, may not terribly efficient in humans. Fish kindly provide omega-3's in those ready-to-use molecules. Funky: if you have high cholesterol, it may be prudent to prefer fish oil, as it seems to be more potent in this regard. It would be best to investigate this matter in greater depth, but if my relatives' use of omega-3's is any indication (at least one uses fish and flax, but uses more of the former), this concern seems to have some weight. Fish oil may be superior in bringing down LDLs, as one paper that I found suggest.

I looked in the first place because I know that while both flax and fish oil may have omega-3s, the specific omega-3's in question are different. Linolenic acid from flax must be metabolized to form longer fatty acid chains that the body will use, such as DHA and EPA. This enzyme, as I recall, may not terribly efficient in humans. Fish kindly provide omega-3's in those ready-to-use molecules.

Funky: if you have high cholesterol, it may be prudent to prefer fish oil, as it seems to be more potent in this regard. It would be best to investigate this matter in greater depth, but if my relatives' use of omega-3's is any indication (at least one uses fish and flax, but uses more of the former), this concern seems to have some weight.]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2608#comment-41706 edey Wed, 16 May 2007 21:45:46 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2608#comment-41706 you can always substitute flax seeds for fish oil if the desired nutrient is the omega 3 fatty acids. http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2608#comment-41676 Jerry Wed, 16 May 2007 12:12:51 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2608#comment-41676 You may also wish to investigate increasing your niacin intake and also taking a fish oil supplement. Jacking up your fiber more couldn't hurt either. http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2608#comment-41572 Funky Dung Mon, 14 May 2007 15:54:32 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2608#comment-41572 Mean Dean: Blogs4God lives?! http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2608#comment-41571 Funky Dung Mon, 14 May 2007 15:53:04 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2608#comment-41571 Thanks to all for the advice I've received so far. :) ]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2608#comment-41433 Mean Dean Sun, 13 May 2007 11:18:15 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2608#comment-41433 Well, kudos on the weight loss anyway! That's an important improvent to your health and you would not be beefing (excuse the pun) about cholestoral w/the other issues the extra weight can bring. Having just lost 80 in a couple years, I feel your pain - and understand the frustration of having yet another hurdle. But I think there is some good advice here w/regards to taking a second look at diet, excersize and other not-so-much fun as ice-cream sundaes stuff.
Having just lost 80 in a couple years, I feel your pain - and understand the frustration of having yet another hurdle.

But I think there is some good advice here w/regards to taking a second look at diet, excersize and other not-so-much fun as ice-cream sundaes stuff.]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2608#comment-41345 Emily Fri, 11 May 2007 18:10:18 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2608#comment-41345 My dad's cholesterol levels were relatively high, and he began eating oatmeal daily. His cholesterol levels are down several points... Granted, you have farther to go, but oatmeal surely can't hurt. (I didn't mean that to sound like an ad for Quaker Oatmeal.) You are obviously eating healthy, but there are certain foods that are better than others at reducing cholesterol levels: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cholesterol/CL00002 244 is really high for someone who is eating healthy and running. Either the test was way off (unlikely, although you could always try again to be sure), or you are probably looking at the possibility of using drugs to lower your cholesterol levels.
You are obviously eating healthy, but there are certain foods that are better than others at reducing cholesterol levels:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cholesterol/CL00002

244 is really high for someone who is eating healthy and running. Either the test was way off (unlikely, although you could always try again to be sure), or you are probably looking at the possibility of using drugs to lower your cholesterol levels.]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2608#comment-41282 Rob Fri, 11 May 2007 03:21:53 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2608#comment-41282 I'm not that familiar with the physiology of strength training. Having muscles means you have to feed them -- food that might go to fat instead goes to feeding muscle. It might burn off cholesterol the same way, but I don't know for sure. If you followed the cutoff recommendations, the test should be accurate. A repeat to check cholesterol might knock you down some, but they want your LDLs below 100 and your total below 200. Let's say the test is off slightly. That would drop you from the high risk to borderline category, and you have no other risk factors. They might have you alter your diet further to see if your cholesterol can go below 200 that way, but if I were to bet....
If you followed the cutoff recommendations, the test should be accurate. A repeat to check cholesterol might knock you down some, but they want your LDLs below 100 and your total below 200. Let's say the test is off slightly. That would drop you from the high risk to borderline category, and you have no other risk factors. They might have you alter your diet further to see if your cholesterol can go below 200 that way, but if I were to bet….]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2608#comment-41264 Funky Dung Fri, 11 May 2007 02:31:54 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2608#comment-41264 BTW, I've begun strength training 3 days a week. I've heard that might help lower my cholesterol. I'm not sure why. Thoughts? http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2608#comment-41263 Funky Dung Fri, 11 May 2007 02:28:36 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2608#comment-41263 Any chance the test could have been thrown off somehow? I ate right up to the 12 hour cutoff.