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
drop
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?
