Robert Luly luly at netcom.com
Sat Jan 14 10:39:54 EST 1995

Robert Luly (luly at netcom.com) wrote:
: James A. Work (jimwork at netcom.com) wrote:
: : I don't know about the theory "The lower the better."  Some types of 
: : cancers have LDL binding sites on their surfaces.  A sudden drop in LDL 
: : might be bad news.
: : -- 
: : James A. Work a major skew.                         jimwork at netcom.com
: Yeah but....do those binding sites have enough total area to make a 
: difference? I think that low LDL is a symptom not a cause but if I saw a 
: *sudden* drop in LDL I think I would check under the hood just in case. I 
: still think slowly lowering total cholestrol  (except HDL) is better.

I think this is an important topic so I would like to get more input 
here. You said her total cholestrol was around 180 normally but did just LDL 
suddenly or did HDL drop in the same ammount? I have noticed that cancer 
grows *towards* the blood supply. It even produces groth factors that 
produce new blood vessels. Could it be what your aunt was suggesting was 
the cancer wants to "feed" on fat in the blood as a high 
energy source?
I have seen reports before that have implied that low cholestrol *causes* 
cancer. I don't think that is what you are saying. I would think instead 
that reducing cholestrol before there is a problem might reduce the food 
supply for new cancers. What do you think about that? 

More information about the Ageing mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net