U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 01-10-2011, 07:31 AM
 
419 posts, read 734,134 times
Reputation: 369

Advertisements

The results of some blood work I had done came back and one of the things that looks odd to me is my cholesterol and triglyceride numbers. Two years ago, I had them checked and total cholesterol was 159 and trigs were 85. Now, cholesterol is up at 174 and trigs are down to 69. Does anyone know why would cholesterol go up while trigs go down?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2011, 11:58 AM
 
3,627 posts, read 12,400,342 times
Reputation: 2682
I would not think 15 point swings either way would be of any significance
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2011, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,476 posts, read 26,078,274 times
Reputation: 26426
Granny is right. What you need are the normal numbers for the lab that did the test, but those numbers look great.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2011, 09:50 PM
 
Location: Lakeland, Florida
6,680 posts, read 11,893,412 times
Reputation: 7880
Those numbers are great. I wish I had triglyerides that low. I don't know why your number would be a little up and down for you. Just congratulate yourself your doing great. Im a Diabetic and my chol is 150 but my tri are 224 and they have been up in the 400s. Diabetics are notorious for high tri. No matter how fit or diet restrictive they are. Im on fish oil to see if that will help lower them.

Really consider yourself lucky. Those are excellent numbers that many people would love to have.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2011, 05:45 AM
 
419 posts, read 734,134 times
Reputation: 369
Thanks everyone for the reassurance. I won't sweat it then.

Jimrob1, my husband has high trigs too. He was in the 500s, then took red yeast rice pills for a few months so far, and his last test had him in the low 300s. And his cholesterol was lower too (not not of the danger zone, though). Come to think of it, he's also taking fish oil (about a month now). He's set to get another test at the end of this month, so we'll see if the stuff is working. Hope things work out for you. With your trigs down to half of what they were, it sounds like you're on the right track.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2011, 07:31 PM
 
Location: Lakeland, Florida
6,680 posts, read 11,893,412 times
Reputation: 7880
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaida View Post
Thanks everyone for the reassurance. I won't sweat it then.

Jimrob1, my husband has high trigs too. He was in the 500s, then took red yeast rice pills for a few months so far, and his last test had him in the low 300s. And his cholesterol was lower too (not not of the danger zone, though). Come to think of it, he's also taking fish oil (about a month now). He's set to get another test at the end of this month, so we'll see if the stuff is working. Hope things work out for you. With your trigs down to half of what they were, it sounds like you're on the right track.
Thanks Jaida. Thats right Don't sweat it with your excellent numbers.

I hope both your husband and I find some benefits from the Fish Oil for the Tri's. I have been taking them for a month myself. My tri's went down quite abit when I started taking Metformin as part of my Diabetic treatment. Unfortunately not enough though, so hope this fish oil works. Thanks for mentioning the red yeast rice pills, I wasn't aware of their benefits. I will ask my doctor if they would be of benefit to me.

Thanks. Jimrob1
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 03:03 PM
 
106 posts, read 235,545 times
Reputation: 137
the most important thing to look for in a standard lipid panel test is your hdl to trig ratio. you want high hdl and low trigs. if you have that, your ldl particles are likely to be large, bouyant type (pattern a). this usually correlates with an overall good cardiovascular health. the way to truly tell is to get a vap test or a "lipoprotein analysis". as far as total cholesterol goes, absolutely toss the whole idea out the window. in fact, in a massive study of cad patients, they found that those with ldl above 160, not below, were in the safest zone for heart attack risk. see for yourself. look at the top right corner with the chart. regardless of hdl, higher ldl was safer across the board. (lowest % of patients with cad).

http://astute.cardiosource.com/2007/...75_Fonarow.pdf

Last edited by Jack Kronk; 01-14-2011 at 03:04 PM.. Reason: link didnt work
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 03:07 PM
 
Location: Buxton, England
7,032 posts, read 8,372,655 times
Reputation: 3529
LOL. I had my trigycerides tested for no reason once, I had just eaten red meat and drunk a ton of fruit juice. The level was 35. (max limit 150). Being "underweight" has real benefits...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,476 posts, read 26,078,274 times
Reputation: 26426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Kronk View Post
the most important thing to look for in a standard lipid panel test is your hdl to trig ratio. you want high hdl and low trigs. if you have that, your ldl particles are likely to be large, bouyant type (pattern a). this usually correlates with an overall good cardiovascular health. the way to truly tell is to get a vap test or a "lipoprotein analysis". as far as total cholesterol goes, absolutely toss the whole idea out the window. in fact, in a massive study of cad patients, they found that those with ldl above 160, not below, were in the safest zone for heart attack risk. see for yourself. look at the top right corner with the chart. regardless of hdl, higher ldl was safer across the board. (lowest % of patients with cad).

http://astute.cardiosource.com/2007/...75_Fonarow.pdf

What the chart shows is the distribution of HDL and LDL values in a group with known coronary artery disease, about 20% of whom were on lipid lowering meds. It really shows the protective effect of high HDL, with only 7.8% of the patients having HDL over 60. Over half of them had HDLs under 40. For each range of LDL, the number of patients decreases linearly the higher the HDL goes. For each range of HDL values, the distribution of LDLs looks bell shaped.

The real question is why would someone in the HDL > 60 and LDL < 70 group, supposedly at low risk, have a coronary event. What we do not know is whether this group was on medication and, if they were, for how long. The average age of the group was 65 +/- 14 years. An older patient with a prior MI just recently started on medication might not have had time to see a beneficial effect on arterial narrowing, although the numbers looked good. It would also be interesting to see what the numbers were for people who went on to surgical treatment --- stents or bypass --- and the numbers for fatal MI's.

The study also does not tell us about markers for inflammation, such as C reactive protein, homocysteine, and fibrinogen. So, yes, ideally a more detailed cardiovascular risk panel would be helpful. Those blood tests are some expensive suckers, though! I wonder how many insurance companies willcover them.

Great link. Thanks.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 10:52 PM
 
106 posts, read 235,545 times
Reputation: 137
Yes you're correct. I also found the bottom right bullet points very interesting. Please help me understand if I am reading this incorrectly.

In a large cohort of hospitalized CAD patients, almost
half have admission LDL levels < 100 mg/dL, whereas
less than a quarter of patients have LDL >130 mg/dL.
These findings provide further support for recent
guideline revisions with even lower LDL goals.

It sounds to me like they missed the point with the 2 bullets above. If almost half of the CAD patients had low LDL of under 100, and less than 25% had above 130, how does bullet #2 make any sense. 75% of the folks who had CAD were under 130. So the goal then... is to get everyone even lower???

Also, this is interesting.

Less than 10% of patients hospitalized with CAD have
HDL levels above 60 mg/dL.

We all know high HDL is good. So how come if you have an HDL of say, 78, but your LDL is, say 170, the docs will want to put you on meds? Your chance of a heart attack is likely very slim with such a high LDL, especially if your trigs are very low.

Anyway... yah there are some additional markers that could paint a more complete picture here, but the charts and the data here is very interesting to study.

-jack k
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top