Re: Low Cholesterol Levels

[Guest guest]

High, compared to mine

TC: 113

HDL: 65

I worry also, but, not too much.....

Some aver one ought to be at least !50, and low levels are associated with overall increased risk of death, decreased mental function.

On 5/9/05, ashton2442 <a.braithwaite@...> wrote:

Yesterday I tested my Cholesterol Levels and they were all low, maybetoo low?Total Cholesterol 142

HDL 26LDL (computed) 106 (142-25-64/5)Triglycerides 64Glucose (random) 80Blood Pressure 104/72Body Fat % 4%I'm concerned about the low number for Total Cholesterol and

especially HDL. I'm 50 yrs. old, and have no known health problems.Suggestions?Ashton

[Guest guest]

Hi :

My recollection is that a major german (Hamburg?) study found that

the increased mortality in people with low LDL was confined solely to

smokers. The data were posted here sometime in the past year. For a

guess, perhaps June last year? It is in the archives. Maybe I will

look for it if I can find the time.

The only number of Ashton's I would be concerned about is the 4% body

fat. I would think s/he ought to try to raise it to above 6%?

Rodney.

> >

> > Yesterday I tested my Cholesterol Levels and they were all low,

maybe

> > too low?

> >

> > Total Cholesterol 142

> > HDL 26

> > LDL (computed) 106 (142-25-64/5)

> > Triglycerides 64

> > Glucose (random) 80

> > Blood Pressure 104/72

> > Body Fat % 4%

> >

> > I'm concerned about the low number for Total Cholesterol and

> > especially HDL. I'm 50 yrs. old, and have no known health

problems.

> > Suggestions?

> >

> > Ashton

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Agree. Low HDL also a bit annoying. Perhaps omega 3s, exercise, niacin, alcohol (in moderation, especially Pinot Noir- just a personal favorite).

On 5/9/05, Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote:

Hi :My recollection is that a major german (Hamburg?) study found thatthe increased mortality in people with low LDL was confined solely to

smokers. The data were posted here sometime in the past year. For aguess, perhaps June last year? It is in the archives. Maybe I willlook for it if I can find the time.The only number of Ashton's I would be concerned about is the 4% body

fat. I would think s/he ought to try to raise it to above 6%?Rodney.> >> > Yesterday I tested my Cholesterol Levels and they were all low,maybe> > too low?> >> > Total Cholesterol 142

> > HDL 26> > LDL (computed) 106 (142-25-64/5)> > Triglycerides 64> > Glucose (random) 80> > Blood Pressure 104/72> > Body Fat % 4%> >> > I'm concerned about the low number for Total Cholesterol and

> > especially HDL. I'm 50 yrs. old, and have no known healthproblems.> > Suggestions?> >> > Ashton> >> >> >> >

[Guest guest]

Absolutely. Ashton: See our file on " moderate vs. extreme CRON " . Bodyfat

should not be allowed to go below 5% for men and 10% for women (see BT120 YD

pg 227). So I hope you're a man but even so your bodyfat is too low.

on 5/9/2005 9:44 AM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> The only number of Ashton's I would be concerned about is the 4% body

> fat. I would think s/he ought to try to raise it to above 6%?

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

Ashton, the HDL is low, but it does matter less at low total cholesterol levels.

It

may be increased with moderate alcohol, exercise and I have found fatty fish to

help. The total cholesterol would not bother me. It is good.

--- ashton2442 <a.braithwaite@...> wrote:

> Yesterday I tested my Cholesterol Levels and they were all low, maybe

> too low?

>

> Total Cholesterol 142

> HDL 26

> LDL (computed) 106 (142-25-64/5)

> Triglycerides 64

> Glucose (random) 80

> Blood Pressure 104/72

> Body Fat % 4%

>

> I'm concerned about the low number for Total Cholesterol and

> especially HDL. I'm 50 yrs. old, and have no known health problems.

> Suggestions?

>

> Ashton

Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

__________________________________

Mobile

Take with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

http://mobile./learn/mail

[Guest guest]

> Absolutely. Ashton: See our file on " moderate vs. extreme CRON " .

Bodyfat

> should not be allowed to go below 5% for men and 10% for women (see

BT120 YD

> pg 227). So I hope you're a man but even so your bodyfat is too low.

>

Minimum cutoff points, those " never go below " numbers--whether

referring to bf%, calories, BMI, BP, WBC, HDL, whatever--are helpful

guidelines, but shouldn't be arbitrary commandments carved in stone.

For instance, there are two ways to alter a ratio, in this case

lowering the percentage of body fat: one, decrease the total amount of

fat on the body; or two, increase total lean body mass, especially

muscle, while the amount of fat remains the same.

For instance, say I'm 5'4 " and my body fat reads 10%. This could mean

I weigh 100 pounds and have 90 pounds of lean body mass plus 10 pound

of fat; but it could also mean I weigh 120 pounds and have 12 pounds

of fat and 108 pounds of lean body mass, a much healthier scenario.

Then suppose, in the second case, I gained 5 pounds of muscle but fat

stayed the same. I'd now weigh 125 pounds, but still have only 12

pounds of fat, so my bf% would drop to 9.6%. That's now below the 10%

arbitrary cutoff for females, but I would actually have more lean

mass, and possibly be stronger and healthier than I had been at 10%.

Whereas if in the first scenario I lost 1 pounds of fat but kept lean

mass at 90 pounds, I'd now weigh 99 pounds and have a bf% of around

9%. But in this case, I'd probably be straying into the Land of the

Dangerously Low BF%.

See the difference?

So, I would agree that getting as low as 4% could be dangerous if it

were achieved solely by losing fat tissue while lean body mass

remained the same or even dropped (and dangerous no matter what in a

woman). But if the ratio of fat decreased because more muscle mass was

added, as may be the case with, say, huge robust healthy competitive

body builders, then that 4% may not be such a bad ratio.

So, Ashton: are you a male bodybuilder? That could make a difference.

Otherwise, Gaaah! Like the others said, 4% could be an alarmingly low

bf%. By the way, how was it measured? Calipers, Futrex, Tanita, etc.?

-Liz

[Guest guest]

I think we need more info about Ashton in general. Ashton: what's your

gender? How tall are you? How much do you weigh? How many calories do you

ingest a day?

on 5/9/2005 11:13 AM, wachendorfia at leroy23@... wrote:

> So, Ashton: are you a male bodybuilder? That could make a difference.

> Otherwise, Gaaah! Like the others said, 4% could be an alarmingly low

> bf%. By the way, how was it measured? Calipers, Futrex, Tanita, etc.?

>

> -Liz

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

If anyone here believes that the issue - namely, what the

appropriate 'do not go below' thresholds are for BF% - has been well

researched and is pretty clearly understood, then please post some of

the supporting evidence.

I.E. how do each of us determine our appropriate lower threshold

given our age, gender, amount of physical activity, type of diet

(macronutrients), ethnic origin, temporal eating patterns, etc..

It would also be helpful to know what the earliest symptoms are,

warning of danger, after the threshold has been exceeded. And also,

are there any irreversible consequences of going too far?

My *impression* is that this is an area that is only vaguely

understood. But I have this impression only because I have never

read any serious studies on the matter. That does not mean they do

not exist.

***IF*** I am right that it is not well understood how low humans can

go in caloric intake before serious, possibly irreversible, problems

set in, then those going to, or beyond, the lower extremes will find

either that they are the trail blazers of tomorrow, or the canary in

a poorly managed coal mine. How does one know which?

I am happy to drop my BF% to 10%. But I would be very cautious about

going much below that until I have seen more evidence. Preferably

from studies in humans.

Rodney.

>

> > So, Ashton: are you a male bodybuilder? That could make a

difference.

> > Otherwise, Gaaah! Like the others said, 4% could be an alarmingly

low

> > bf%. By the way, how was it measured? Calipers, Futrex, Tanita,

etc.?

> >

> > -Liz

[Guest guest]

Agreed, your first point is important, your later question even more.

Methods for measuring %BF are pretty inaccurate.

JR

-----Original Message-----

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of wachendorfia

Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 10:13 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Low Cholesterol Levels

> Absolutely. Ashton: See our file on " moderate vs. extreme CRON " .

Bodyfat

> should not be allowed to go below 5% for men and 10% for women (see

BT120 YD

> pg 227). So I hope you're a man but even so your bodyfat is too low.

>

Minimum cutoff points, those " never go below " numbers--whether

referring to bf%, calories, BMI, BP, WBC, HDL, whatever--are helpful

guidelines, but shouldn't be arbitrary commandments carved in stone.

For instance, there are two ways to alter a ratio, in this case

lowering the percentage of body fat: one, decrease the total amount of

fat on the body; or two, increase total lean body mass, especially

muscle, while the amount of fat remains the same.

For instance, say I'm 5'4 " and my body fat reads 10%. This could mean

I weigh 100 pounds and have 90 pounds of lean body mass plus 10 pound

of fat; but it could also mean I weigh 120 pounds and have 12 pounds

of fat and 108 pounds of lean body mass, a much healthier scenario.

Then suppose, in the second case, I gained 5 pounds of muscle but fat

stayed the same. I'd now weigh 125 pounds, but still have only 12

pounds of fat, so my bf% would drop to 9.6%. That's now below the 10%

arbitrary cutoff for females, but I would actually have more lean

mass, and possibly be stronger and healthier than I had been at 10%.

Whereas if in the first scenario I lost 1 pounds of fat but kept lean

mass at 90 pounds, I'd now weigh 99 pounds and have a bf% of around

9%. But in this case, I'd probably be straying into the Land of the

Dangerously Low BF%.

See the difference?

So, I would agree that getting as low as 4% could be dangerous if it

were achieved solely by losing fat tissue while lean body mass

remained the same or even dropped (and dangerous no matter what in a

woman). But if the ratio of fat decreased because more muscle mass was

added, as may be the case with, say, huge robust healthy competitive

body builders, then that 4% may not be such a bad ratio.

So, Ashton: are you a male bodybuilder? That could make a difference.

Otherwise, Gaaah! Like the others said, 4% could be an alarmingly low

bf%. By the way, how was it measured? Calipers, Futrex, Tanita, etc.?

-Liz

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

If the test was skin fold then the results are likely to be unreliable. My DEXA

body fat was over 8% and it was less than 0 by skin fold test.

--- Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote:

>

> The only number of Ashton's I would be concerned about is the 4% body

> fat. I would think s/he ought to try to raise it to above 6%?

>

Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

__________________________________

Mobile

Take with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

http://mobile./learn/mail

[Guest guest]

The studies that extreme thinness leads to shorter life, not longer life,

are good enough for me. All detailed in our files. BTW another piece of the

puzzle would be Ashton's age, since older humans die YOUNGER if restricted

too greatly. I remind people of 's experience detailed here:

/message/15791

I wonder how many extremists brains are affected but perhaps they are not

even aware of it the way was. For example, irritablility is an

often seen " side effect " (along with diminished libido and all the other

problems often discussed so the brain is certainly affected).

Here's an old exchange from Ashton, replied to by Tony when Ashton had 5%

body fat.

----------

From: " citpeks " <citpeks@...>

Reply-

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 15:27:56 -0000

Subject: [ ] Re: Body Fat < 6%

Knowing that the brain is over 50% fat, and that the myelin sheath

of neurons is 70% fat, I would be cautious about trying to lose too

much body fat, some brain and neural functions might go along with it.

A. Zamora

>>>

From: " ashton2442 " <a.braithwaite@a...>

Date: Sun Jun 6, 2004 4:17 am

Subject: Re: Body Fat

What, 6% is suppose to be the lowest one should go? The calorie

restriction curves seem to indicate that benefits from calorie

restriction will be achieved up to a 66% restriction in calories,

and I have not even approached 50% restriction, but I'm sure that as

I do I will continue to loose body fat.

From measuring my body fat with the BodyTrends fat caliper I'm 5%

body fat, 5'9 " and 144lbs, with muscle tone (I work out 3 times a

week).

>>>

on 5/9/2005 12:10 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> If anyone here believes that the issue - namely, what the

> appropriate 'do not go below' thresholds are for BF% - has been well

> researched and is pretty clearly understood, then please post some of

> the supporting evidence.

>

[Guest guest]

>>>

From:

On Behalf Of wachendorfia

Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 10:13 AM

Subject: Re: Low Cholesterol Levels

>snip<

Then suppose, in the second case, I gained 5 pounds of muscle but fat

stayed the same.

>snip<

>>>

IMO, the discussion to justify low percentage of body fat was flawed.

Several months ago we discussed an equation that predicts the amount

of fat and muscle gained or lost when a person either gains or loses

weight. You cannot gain weight without gaining fat because the walls

of the muscle cells are made of fat (bilipid layer, etc.). I recall

that once the body fat reaches 15%, any weight loss will consist of a

greater percentage of muscle than fat.

The reason for not going below certain minimums of fat is that 1) the

brain is over 60% fat, 2) the myelin covering of the axons is about

70% fat. When you deplete your fat severely, you are decreasing your

mental and neural functions.

Tony

[Guest guest]

Hi Al:

Well I am now convinced that DXA is NOT a reliable way to determine

bone density, especially for those whose BMI is within the standard

criterion for healthy range - BMI = 18.5 to 24.9. So I now wonder

how reliable a measure it is of BF%.

The reason for its unreliability for bone density measurements is

that it measures bone MASS in a section of bone of UNKNOWN

thickness. Those with a healthy BMI have smaller bones and so the

mass is smaller, but not necessarily because of porosity, just

because of smaller size.

Furthermore, the reference groups against which a patient's data are

compared for the calculation of the T and Z values are NOT matched

for BMI (nor weight). Despite the fact that several studies show

that BMI is overwhelmingly the most important factor determining bone

size.

I would need to know more about how BF% is determined by DXA before

coming to a conclusion as to whether it accurately measures it.

[CT scans can accurately measure density. But they entail sizeable x-

ray exposure. MRIs can also accurately measure bone porosity, but

the cost of MRI machines makes it unlikely they will be used for

determining bone density until people come the realize that DXA is

not doing a very good job. Naturally, if it so happens that you

exactly match the reference group the DXA measurement is likely to be

reasonably accurate.]

Rodney.

> >

> > The only number of Ashton's I would be concerned about is the 4%

body

> > fat. I would think s/he ought to try to raise it to above 6%?

> >

>

> Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y...

>

>

>

> __________________________________

> Mobile

> Take with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

> http://mobile./learn/mail

[Guest guest]

All,

My body fat measurement was done with the skin fold test (FastTrack

II, skin calipers), so while thin, I have good muscle tone and work

out about 10 times a month. I'm 5'9 " and 140lbs. Sorry, for not

being more specific, earlier.

I have read that HDL levels are a better predictor of heart disease

than Total Cholesterol levels, so I'm thinking I should try and get

this number up.

Thanks for All the Responses,

Ashton

> >

> > The only number of Ashton's I would be concerned about is the 4%

body

> > fat. I would think s/he ought to try to raise it to above 6%?

> >

>

> Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y...

>

>

>

> __________________________________

> Mobile

> Take with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

> http://mobile./learn/mail

[Guest guest]

Bones that become smaller become smaller in diameter but not in length

due to a loss of both cortices and trabeculae (marrow). Both aspects

are important for bone strength and rigidity. I don't see how a bone

that has become smaller can be as strong as it was at its original

dimensions.

> > >

> > > The only number of Ashton's I would be concerned about is the 4%

> body

> > > fat. I would think s/he ought to try to raise it to above 6%?

> > >

> >

> > Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y...

> >

> >

> >

> > __________________________________

> > Mobile

> > Take with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

> > http://mobile./learn/mail

[Guest guest]

In addition to the structural requirements for fats, there are functional needs.

For example fat is used in digestion (bile) and even manufacture of vitamin D

just below the skin surface.

I have no idea what my %BF is despite Tanita measurements to 1/10th of a

percent,

nor do I target it by any such measurement. I put some reliance in healthy

should

look " healthy " in the mirror despite the cultural biases and subjective nature

of

such a call. But it's my body so my call.... moderation.

JR

-----Original Message-----

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of citpeks

Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 11:45 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Low Cholesterol Levels

>>>

From:

On Behalf Of wachendorfia

Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 10:13 AM

Subject: Re: Low Cholesterol Levels

>snip<

Then suppose, in the second case, I gained 5 pounds of muscle but fat

stayed the same.

>snip<

>>>

IMO, the discussion to justify low percentage of body fat was flawed.

Several months ago we discussed an equation that predicts the amount

of fat and muscle gained or lost when a person either gains or loses

weight. You cannot gain weight without gaining fat because the walls

of the muscle cells are made of fat (bilipid layer, etc.). I recall

that once the body fat reaches 15%, any weight loss will consist of a

greater percentage of muscle than fat.

The reason for not going below certain minimums of fat is that 1) the

brain is over 60% fat, 2) the myelin covering of the axons is about

70% fat. When you deplete your fat severely, you are decreasing your

mental and neural functions.

Tony

[Guest guest]

Please let me add ...

I'm a 50 year old MALE, who has been practicing CR for 2 years. I

average around 1600 calories / day.

Again, I'm 5'9 " and 140lbs, with toned muscle because I workout,

resistance and cardio 10 out of 30 days a month with higher reps (16

per set) to avoid developing too much muscle. The only other

interesting fact that my body temperature has always been on the low

side - about 97.6 before CR and now closer to 96.0 degrees.

I do take 190mg of Niacin and 920mg GLA/1000mg DHA per day plus eat

fish a couple times a week. I rarely drink alcohol.

From all your comments, I'm still most concerned about my HDL, and

not clear how or if I should be attempting to raise it.

Thanks Again!

Ashton

> > >

> > > The only number of Ashton's I would be concerned about is the

4%

> body

> > > fat. I would think s/he ought to try to raise it to above

6%?

> > >

> >

> > Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y...

> >

> >

> >

> > __________________________________

> > Mobile

> > Take with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

> > http://mobile./learn/mail

[Guest guest]

IMHO,

I wouldnt worry so much about the HDL for many reasons, which I can elaborate

on, however, again, that is not the part I wouldnt be worried over.

If I had any concern, it would the the LDL and I like to see them under 100 in

general and under 70 for someone with a prior history or strong family history

of CVD. My other concern which has been addressed here is the % BF, however,

most methods for estimating it are fairly inaccurate, so it may not be as low as

reported but if it is 4%, that is low.

How was all this tested?

Regards

Jeff

________________________________

From: on behalf of ashton2442

Sent: Mon 5/9/05 2:02 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Low Cholesterol Levels

Please let me add ...

I'm a 50 year old MALE, who has been practicing CR for 2 years. I

average around 1600 calories / day.

Again, I'm 5'9 " and 140lbs, with toned muscle because I workout,

resistance and cardio 10 out of 30 days a month with higher reps (16

per set) to avoid developing too much muscle. The only other

interesting fact that my body temperature has always been on the low

side - about 97.6 before CR and now closer to 96.0 degrees.

I do take 190mg of Niacin and 920mg GLA/1000mg DHA per day plus eat

fish a couple times a week. I rarely drink alcohol.

From all your comments, I'm still most concerned about my HDL, and

not clear how or if I should be attempting to raise it.

Thanks Again!

Ashton

> > >

> > > The only number of Ashton's I would be concerned about is the

4%

> body

> > > fat. I would think s/he ought to try to raise it to above

6%?

> > >

> >

> > Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y...

> >

> >

> >

> > __________________________________

> > Mobile

> > Take with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

> > http://mobile./learn/mail

[Guest guest]

Hi :

As I understand it fully intact small bones are very much stronger

than bones that are porous. Hence the term " osteoPOROSIS " . I have

been told by a physician who is a member of ISCD that " 80% to 90% of

the problem is porosity " , although intact smaller bones are somewhat

weaker than intact larger bones, understandably. But DXA does not

measure porosity, or even density. While it knows the mass of bone

involved in the test it has no idea of its volume as it does not know

how thick the bone is. That doesn't matter much if your bone size

(~=BMI) is similar to that of the reference group. But it isn't for

the vast majority of people who post here. The average of the

population group of which I am a member has a BMI of about 29 (it was

28.6 in NHANES III, doubtless above 29 by now). I have a BMI between

22 and 23. Yet I am being compared with them.

It is a bit ridiculous for everyone whose BMI is in the healthy range

to be diagnosed as having poor bone health because they have a

healthy weight. The healthy people are being compared with unhealthy

people who have big bones BECAUSE they are unhealthy.

If you wish, take a look at PMID: 15221500 for the information

that: " BMI was the only factor that was found to be an independent

predictor of lumbar spine BMD " - that is BMD as MEASURED BY DXA. Not

as measured by something we know actually does measure DENSITY. Yet

the reference groups in DXA are not matched for BMI. I can provide

other Pubmed references saying pretty much the same.

I do not want to bug you about this (!) but if you have good

information on DXA and bone density please email me because I have a

lot of questions about the data on which DXA evaluations are based

which no one (including the people who manufacture the equipment) are

able - or perhaps willing - to answer for me. For example, what are

the characteristics of the DXA reference groups - especially what are

their BMIs, and why are they not matched for BMI, or weight, or

whatever? Also, how much does bone size vary, on average, per unit

of BMI? How well does fracture risk correlate with DXA 'BMD' at low

BMIs, in comparison with the correlation between fracture risk and an

MRI measure of bone density, at low BMIs? (It has been established

that MRI measures of density are VERY closely corelated with

porosity, in experiments in animals). ...........................

No doubt some people who have low BMIs also have porous bones. But

not all of them. One person I know who has seen the results of

hundreds of DXA 'BMD' tests says that " almost without exception "

people with low BMIs come out with poor BMD scores. I think what I

have just explained above is reason for this connection.

I have spent a lot of time (much of it fruitless) on this the past

couple of months. Any help you can provide will be much appreciated

by the whole group, I think. Thanks.

Rodney.

> > > >

> > > > The only number of Ashton's I would be concerned about is the

4%

> > body

> > > > fat. I would think s/he ought to try to raise it to above

6%?

> > > >

> > >

> > > Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y...

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > __________________________________

> > > Mobile

> > > Take with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

> > > http://mobile./learn/mail

[Guest guest]

Bone consists of two parts: The cortex and the trabeculae. With bone

loss the cortex (shell) thins and the trabecular spaces enlarge. (See

the link:

http://www.rheumatology.org/public/factsheets/osteopor_new.asp?aud=pat

) With a reduction in bone mass bone is lose from both the cortex and

trabeculae. As a ceratin threshold of bone loss is reached the term

" osteoporosis " is applied. But as you can see the process is a

continuum with progressive weakening as loss proceeds to clinical status.

I would advise you not to readily accept this bone loss. Retain as

much as you can!

> > > > >

> > > > > The only number of Ashton's I would be concerned about is the

> 4%

> > > body

> > > > > fat. I would think s/he ought to try to raise it to above

> 6%?

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y...

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > __________________________________

> > > > Mobile

> > > > Take with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

> > > > http://mobile./learn/mail

[Guest guest]

Hi :

I agree completely that we should endeavor to retain as much bone as

possible.

My point is simply that DXA does not measure porosity or density. It

measures the mass in a section of bone. Small bones are not a big

problem. Porous bones are a very big problem. DXA does not

distinguish which it is in people of healthy BMI.

Similarly it may be possible for someone with a BMI of 35 to have

large porous bones and still score well on DXA - since they would

have lots of total bone, despite the holes.

Rodney.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The only number of Ashton's I would be concerned about is

the

> > 4%

> > > > body

> > > > > > fat. I would think s/he ought to try to raise it to

above

> > 6%?

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y...

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > __________________________________

> > > > > Mobile

> > > > > Take with you! Check email on your mobile

phone.

> > > > > http://mobile./learn/mail

[Guest guest]

I really can't tell if we're on same page or not. As bones become

" smaller " (more accurately " less dense " ) the cortices thin and the

trabeculae enlarge. As bone loss progresses the cortices thin and the

bone becomes smaller and the trabeculer spaces enlarge and the bone

becomes more porous. The bones become progressively less able to

handle mechanical stresses and strains, and may progress to the point

of clinical and symptomatic relevance when the diagnosis of

osteopososis or osteomalcia is then made.

Are we on same page here?

" Smaller " bones is not really a very accurate descriptor because it

ignores the trabecular loss which make the bone more porous. The

trabeculer cross-bridging is *more* important than the cortices for

resisting compression and tension in dynamic loading of the bone. By

necessity you lose bone mass you lose the cortical shell and you lose

and enlarge existing trabeculae, and bones weaken.

I apologize if this redundant.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The only number of Ashton's I would be concerned about is

> the

> > > 4%

> > > > > body

> > > > > > > fat. I would think s/he ought to try to raise it to

> above

> > > 6%?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y...

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > __________________________________

> > > > > > Mobile

> > > > > > Take with you! Check email on your mobile

> phone.

> > > > > > http://mobile./learn/mail

[Guest guest]

Hello Rodney,

Really not into bone density, mass, or anything measurements (except

that the wife had a few less than normal measurements a while back)

but your discussion has somewhat piqued my interest. Found the following,

" Bone Structure And Function in Normal and Disease States "

http://www.fleshandbones.com/readingroom/pdf/113.pdf

On page 9, Fig. 5.7 shows " scanning electron micrographs of (A) normal

and ( osteoporotic bone " that provides a visual of how bone actually

appears - at least on a microscopic scale.

Aequalsz

PS. Beware. (Caveat emperors :-) Haven't vested the work yet so

can't assure you of it's validity. But methinks it's for real.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The only number of Ashton's I would be concerned about is

> the

> > > 4%

> > > > > body

> > > > > > > fat. I would think s/he ought to try to raise it to

> above

> > > 6%?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y...

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > __________________________________

> > > > > > Mobile

> > > > > > Take with you! Check email on your mobile

> phone.

> > > > > > http://mobile./learn/mail