How many times should you check your cholesterol?
wuzzy
How many times should you have your blood cholesterol tested
before you know you have high cholesterol?
Steve Harris
news:d996c21a.02031...@posting.google.com...
> There are experts I think on this topic in this newsgroup:
>
>
> How many times should you have your blood cholesterol tested
> before you know you have high cholesterol?
Twice, so long as you've fasted at least 12 hours eat time, and no cheating.
--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to fix my address
(it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend recipients of unsolicited
bulk Email ad spam use "http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate
name of the last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward message
& headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."
Steve Harris
news:a6m9pt$l6t$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> "wuzzy" <myp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d996c21a.02031...@posting.google.com...
> > There are experts I think on this topic in this newsgroup:
> >
> >
> > How many times should you have your blood cholesterol tested
> > before you know you have high cholesterol?
ANSWER: Twice, so long as you've fasted at least 12 hours each time, and no
cheating.
--
I welcome Email from strangers with the inimal cleverness to fix my address
(it's an open-book test). I strongly ecommend recipients of unsolicited
Martin Banschbach Ph.D.
>before you know you have high cholesterol?
From what I understand, it's like blood pressure, more than 1 reading is
recommended to decide if action needs to be taken.
It can change but it's not going to fluctuate like blood pressure can.
Without looking it up, I would only be guessing. If I remember correctly, it
takes about 1 week for a diet change to start altering the blood level of total
and LDL. If you are not making any major changes in your diet, I would think
that two readings would be enough if they are in agreement (little difference
between the two lab reports).
The same lab should probably be used for both lipid profiles. I don't think
that there is much variability from one lab to the next anymore.
Marty B "You are what you eat"
Don Bailey
"Martin Banschbach Ph.D." <mbans...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020313094546...@mb-ch.aol.com...
> Without looking it up, I would only be guessing. If I remember correctly,
it
> takes about 1 week for a diet change to start altering the blood level of
total
> and LDL.
I agree. My chols. runs about 290. Last year I went to a almost no fat
diet,
lost a few pounds and In a few weeks It dropped to 185. Unfortunately, I
cannot sustain this diet for the long haul.
db
K
"Don Bailey" <d0n...@netzero.net> wrote
>
> I agree. My chols. runs about 290. Last year I went to a almost no fat
> diet,
> lost a few pounds and In a few weeks It dropped to 185. Unfortunately, I
> cannot sustain this diet for the long haul.
I wonder which factor has the biggest influence on cholesterol levels.
(A) Dietary fat reduction or (B) weight reduction/general caloric reduction?
Is there any real benefit to controlling serum cholesterol and to general
health by reducing fat intake near zero? Perhaps a reduction to near normal
recommended levels total fat, while focusing avoidance on saturated fat and
replacing it with mono/poly unsaturated fats, and avoiding trans-fats is a
better long term strategy?
Then there's other dietary impacts on the liver which produces your body's
cholesterol. Perhaps these factors, such as caffeine and alcohol
consumption, are more influencing, for some, than reducing normal levels of
total fat consumption.
It's all very complicated to me. But I tend to think that a good balanced
diet, weight management and avoiding known problem foods like saturated
fats, transfats, caffeine and alcohol is the way to go. Still, some folks
who do all that will still need medication to help control it. But if
there's no other risk factors such as cardio-vascular disease history,
diabetes, obesity, smoking, and so forth, is taking cholesterol medication
really worth it?
I've got lots more questions than answers on this.
Kosta
Paul Rogers
As I understand it, HDL measurement is not all that accurate. Can
anyone confirm this?
Paul R
John 'the Man'
Once upon a time, our fellow K
rambled on about "Re: How many times should you check your
cholesterol?"
Our champion being bored in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
The first thing that you need to do is to determine if you are SUGAR
sensitive.
http://food.naturalhealthperspective.com/sugar.html
>Is there any real benefit to controlling serum cholesterol and to general
>health by reducing fat intake near zero?
Yes, but it would mainly apply to non-SUGAR sensitive individuals.
If you are a FAT sensitive individual, maintaining your TC below 150
and eating a very low fat diet (10%) for at least 2 years has a
certain therapeutic effect.
>Perhaps a reduction to near normal
>recommended levels total fat, while focusing avoidance on saturated fat and
>replacing it with mono/poly unsaturated fats, and avoiding trans-fats is a
>better long term strategy?
"Better," is subjective. "Better," is a matter of opinion.
Personally, I have a thin body type of normal weight and went with a
very low-fat diet for a couple of years. Such, a routine probably
wouldn't be nearly as effective for an overweight SUGAR sensitive
person weighing more than 200 pounds.
>It's all very complicated to me. But I tend to think that a good balanced
>diet, weight management and avoiding known problem foods like saturated
>fats, transfats, caffeine and alcohol is the way to go.
Easier said than done.
I thought originally that I was doing same, but it had a zero effect
on my TC levels. Of course, now I know what a good diet is. My diet
back then was not as good as I thought it was. So, I would say
theoretically it should be possible, but not likely.
The problem would be actually eating a good diet consistently.
>Still, some folks
>who do all that will still need medication to help control it.
Only for people with genetic problems. For most, they simply are not
in fact eating a good diet (for their body type). This is what
happened to me. I tried to eat a good diet for serveral years, with
ZERO effect on my TC levels. It was simply a matter of eating the
WRONG diet.
The secrete for me was eating a near vegetarian diet of Fruits and
Vegetables. In short, a HIGH fiber diet.
>But if
>there's no other risk factors such as cardio-vascular disease history,
>diabetes, obesity, smoking, and so forth, is taking cholesterol medication
>really worth it?
It (ie, cholesterol medication) does have therapeutic value. I took
some. And, theoretically it had a good therapeutic benefit.
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
My hidden agenda is to improve my personal health. Beware of anybody
who brags about eating a lousy diet or smoking.
www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Presenting great rules of thumb to eat by!
AlanL
As I understand it, total cholesterol is measured
with reasonable accuracy, and LDL with somewhat
less. From those two, HDL and triglycerides are
calculated. If true, it is no wonder that HDL and
TG have the most variation.
--alan
Paul Rogers
wrote:
Alan, thanks. I think LDL may be the one that is contrived from the
others. There is a formula for getting LDL from HDL and TG:
LDL = total cholesterol minus (HDL + [triglycerides/5])
Some labs now measure LDL directly as well. (Not sure if that is an
accepted standard though.)
Still get the impression the direct HDL measurement is a bit shonky --
not sure by how much.
The method you mention may be used as well, but can't confirm.
Paul R
JEDilworth
LDL is measured directly in some labs now. I am not in chemistry
anymore, and haven't been since the late 80's so I don't know for sure,
but I believe I am correct.
Triglycerides should definitely be measured in a fasting state (12-14
hr. fast) or you will be measuring the fat you just ate. Any doctor who
sends you for lipid blood work and doesn't instruct you to fast first is
making himself look pretty bad. Most labs won't draw lipid profiles in a
non-fasting state unless the doctor insists. You lab results, other
than the total cholesterol, are pretty worthless and it isn't worth the
money to do them in a non-fasting condition.
Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP)
Microbiology
MattLB
> >>anyone confirm this?
> >
> >As I understand it, total cholesterol is measured
> >with reasonable accuracy, and LDL with somewhat
> >less. From those two, HDL and triglycerides are
> >calculated. If true, it is no wonder that HDL and
> >TG have the most variation.
> >
> >--alan
>
> Alan, thanks. I think LDL may be the one that is contrived from the
> others. There is a formula for getting LDL from HDL and TG:
>
> LDL = total cholesterol minus (HDL + [triglycerides/5])
>
> Some labs now measure LDL directly as well. (Not sure if that is an
> accepted standard though.)
>
> Still get the impression the direct HDL measurement is a bit shonky --
> not sure by how much.
The method for isolating HDL seems sound (immunoprecipitate or adsorb
all ApoB containing lipoproteins (LDL,VLDL,IDL), leaving only the
ApoB-less HDL particles) so as long as the cholesterol assay is
accurate it shouldn't be too bad. As an aside, the Friedewald equation
you quote above is only accurate if the TG levels are below 400mg/dl.
There also seems to be a rule of thumb that LDL is about 2/3 of total
cholesterol.
MattLB
AlanL
IIRC, there is a description of the lab procedure
in Thomas Moore's book _Heart Failure_ in the chapter
at
http://www.oralchelation.net/heartdisease/ChapterFive/page5g.htm
--alan
AlanL
JEDilworth <bact...@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote:
>I believe LDL is calculated, not HDL. I also think I have heard that
>LDL is measured directly in some labs now. I am not in chemistry
>anymore, and haven't been since the late 80's so I don't know for sure,
>but I believe I am correct.
Yes, I think you are right, that I mis-remembered.
Total Cholesterol and HDL are measured, and LDL
and TG are calculated. I guess the problem lies
in the fact that the HDL measurement has a high
error rate because of the small quantities, which
propagates to the derived values.
--alan
Jay Tanzman
AlanL wrote:
>
> In article <3C91952F...@nospamhortonsbay.com>,
> JEDilworth <bact...@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote:
> >I believe LDL is calculated, not HDL. I also think I have heard that
> >LDL is measured directly in some labs now. I am not in chemistry
> >anymore, and haven't been since the late 80's so I don't know for sure,
> >but I believe I am correct.
>
> Yes, I think you are right, that I mis-remembered.
> Total Cholesterol and HDL are measured, and LDL
> and TG are calculated.
No. TG is measured, too. LDL is ususally calculated from TG.
-Jay
wuzzy
> I believe LDL is calculated, not HDL. I also think I have heard that
> LDL is measured directly in some labs now. I am not in chemistry
> anymore, and haven't been since the late 80's so I don't know for sure,
> but I believe I am correct.
see http://www.labcorp.com/datasets/labcorp/html/chapter/index.htm
for LDL
the following quote:
(LDL is used) For the direct determination of LDL cholesterol in
nonfasting patients or in patients whose fasting triglycerides are
>400 mg/dL,
Patient Preparation Patients are not required to fast prior to blood
collection. Nonfasting and fasting samples can be used. Nonfasting
results are slightly lower than fasting results.
interesting that fasting LDL is higher than non-fasting.
JEDilworth
what I stated previously (see below):
"Triglycerides (001172)
Patient Preparation Patient should be fasting 12-14 hours. The patient
should be on a stable diet 2 weeks prior to collection of blood.
Causes for Rejection: Nonfasting specimen; specimen collected in a
glycerinated tube; improperly labeled specimen
Reference Interval Desirable: <200 mg/dL; borderline-high: 200-400
mg/dL; high: >400-1000 mg/dL;
very high: >1000 mg/dL. See the Lipid Appendix."
wuzzy wrote:
>
> see http://www.labcorp.com/datasets/labcorp/html/chapter/index.htm
> for LDL
> the following quote:
>
> (LDL is used) For the direct determination of LDL cholesterol in
> nonfasting patients or in patients whose fasting triglycerides are
> >400 mg/dL,
>
> Patient Preparation Patients are not required to fast prior to blood
> collection. Nonfasting and fasting samples can be used. Nonfasting
> results are slightly lower than fasting results.
>
> interesting that fasting LDL is higher than non-fasting.
>
Judy wrote previously:
JEDilworth
predictor of risk as one thinks it should be" or do you mean "the labs
can't produce good results?"
HDL requires a 12-14 hour fast for an "accurate" result. The test
result is only as good as the specimen that gets tested. An accredited
laboratory won't release your HDL result without checking it's quality
control samples on the run before release. If all QC checks out, then
results will be finalized. If QC doesn't work, the test will be
repeated after recalibration of the equipment. Pick a decent laboratory
for your work and shy away from small doctor's office laboratories.
I've found from personal experience as a marketing rep years ago that
doctors really don't understand a lot of the details of setting up labs
in their offices and a few have their clerical help run samples through
to save money. QC and routine maintenance on equipment doesn't get done
when it should be. Large groups of doctors usually have enough money to
hire a technologist to do their blood work and you have a much better
chance of getting stuff done accurately. The highest laboratory
accreditation and the gold standard is CAP accreditation (College of
American Pathologists).
If you're going to be repeatedly tested for lipids, pick a lab and stick
with the same one for subsequent blood work, if possible. Instruments
and normal ranges vary slightly from lab to lab. This holds true for
any blood work that you'll have repeated from time to time.
Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP)
Microbiology
Paul Rogers
<bact...@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote:
>What do you mean by "accurate?" Do you mean as in "it's not as good a
>predictor of risk as one thinks it should be" or do you mean "the labs
>can't produce good results?"
>
No, lab measurement. I saw a page on one of the NIH sites that had a
discussion of HDL measurement and accuracy plus some other vague
recollections from somewhere. I can't recall what the NIH site was.
From what you and Matt say it looks like it is probably okay.
PR
JEDilworth
I found this site while searching in google.com. Apparently the LSP, or
Lipid Standardization Program sends out unknowns to subscribing
laboratories so that they can be tested for the accuracy and precision
of their results. As I have not worked in chemistry in ages, I don't
know anything about this.
I'll cross-post in sci.med.laboratory to see if the MT's in there are
familiar with the program.
Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP)
Microbiology
Mike & Heather Collins
I don't know much about proficiency testing in the US but this site seems to
offer the sort service we have had in the UK since the 1970s.
We currently use WEQAS http://www.weqas.co.uk/
which sends out several samples every fortnight. All external quality
assurance schemes in the UK report accuracy against both method means and
all-method means. Internal QC (for us about 15 high/low sets per day) takes
care of the day to day precision and accuracy checks
--
Mike Collins
UK
Mikech...@oakwellmount.freeserve.co.uk
"JEDilworth" <bact...@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote in message
news:3C942131...@nospamhortonsbay.com...