Please help me understand blood test results
Halterb
my doctors. They consider me healthy and my tests normal, even though when I
look at them I see numerous highs and lows. I am male, white, 65. Tests below
were run while having gasteroenteritis but are similar to my general pattern
(except for high glucose which was after 14 hours with no food other than a
couple of ginger ales 6 hours before).
Glucose* 125
BUN 16
Creatinine .9
Sodium* 137
Potassium 3.9
Chloride 102
CO2 26
Anion gap 9
CPK 92
WBC 4.7
RBC* 4.33
Hemoglob* 13.7
Hct* 40.5
MCV 93.5
MCH* 31.5
MCHC 33.7
RDW 12.4
Platelets* 122
Mean Plat Vol* 8.9
Difs:
Absolute Gran 3.8
Abs Lymphs* .4
Abs Monos .47
Abs Eos 0
Abs Baso 0
Neut%* 80
Lymph* 9
Mono* 10
Eosin* 0
Baso 0
* means out of normal range or in sodium, right at bottom of range
These results don't look to me like a robust individual operating at peak
level. There is a family history of pernicious, so I suspect that is reflected
in the low hgb and high mch. My platelets just keep falling year after year,
though seem to be stabilizing.
Any comments would be appreciated.
slee...@my-deja.com
hal...@aol.com (Halterb) wrote:
> I am not totally uninformed about blood tests, and I HAVE discussed
> them with my doctors. They consider me healthy and my tests normal,
good thinking. never beleive what doctors tell you..... :-)
> even though when I look at them I see numerous highs and lows. I am
> male, white, 65. Tests below were run while having gasteroenteritis
> but are similar to my general pattern (except for high glucose which
> was after 14 hours with no food other than a couple of ginger ales 6
> hours before).
>
> Glucose* 125
> BUN 16
> Creatinine .9
> Sodium* 137
> Potassium 3.9
> Chloride 102
> CO2 26
> Anion gap 9
> CPK 92
<<clip of the 'heme' stuff>>
> These results don't look to me like a robust individual operating
> at peak level. There is a family history of pernicious,
i hope you meant to say 'pernicious anemia'.
> so I suspect that is reflected in the low hgb and high mch. My
> platelets just keep falling year after year, though seem to be
> stabilizing.
>
> Any comments would be appreciated.
let's see. 65 y/o male "having gasteroenteritis". no food for
14 hours. look like reasonably 'healthy' results to me.
wish you had posted chol/hdl values so we could spank you
about them.
sleeper
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Rodan
Your doctors are correct.
>I am not totally uninformed about blood tests, and I HAVE discussed them with
>my doctors. They consider me healthy and my tests normal, even though when I
>look at them I see numerous highs and lows. I am male, white, 65. Tests below
>were run while having gasteroenteritis but are similar to my general pattern
>(except for high glucose which was after 14 hours with no food other than a
>couple of ginger ales 6 hours before).
>
>Glucose* 125
>BUN 16
>Creatinine .9
>Sodium* 137
>Potassium 3.9
>Chloride 102
>CO2 26
>Anion gap 9
>CPK 92
>
>WBC 4.7
>RBC* 4.33
>Hemoglob* 13.7
>Hct* 40.5
>MCV 93.5
>MCH* 31.5
>MCHC 33.7
>RDW 12.4
>Platelets* 122
>Mean Plat Vol* 8.9
>
>Difs:
>Absolute Gran 3.8
>Abs Lymphs* .4
>Abs Monos .47
>Abs Eos 0
>Abs Baso 0
>Neut%* 80
>Lymph* 9
>Mono* 10
>Eosin* 0
>Baso 0
>
>* means out of normal range or in sodium, right at bottom of range
>
>These results don't look to me like a robust individual operating at peak
>level. There is a family history of pernicious, so I suspect that is reflected
Marco
Halterb wrote:
>
> I am not totally uninformed about blood tests, and I HAVE discussed them with
> my doctors. They consider me healthy and my tests normal, even though when I
> look at them I see numerous highs and lows. I am male, white, 65. Tests below
> were run while having gasteroenteritis but are similar to my general pattern
> (except for high glucose which was after 14 hours with no food other than a
> couple of ginger ales 6 hours before).
>
> Glucose* 125
> Sodium* 137
>
> WBC 4.7
> RBC* 4.33
> Hemoglob* 13.7
> Hct* 40.5
> MCV 93.5
> MCH* 31.5
> Platelets* 122
> Mean Plat Vol* 8.9
>
> Difs:
> Absolute Gran 3.8
> Abs Lymphs* .4
> Abs Monos .47
> Abs Eos 0
> Abs Baso 0
> Neut%* 80
> Lymph* 9
> Mono* 10
> Eosin* 0
> Baso 0
>
> * means out of normal range or in sodium, right at bottom of range
>
> These results don't look to me like a robust individual operating at peak
> level. There is a family history of pernicious, so I suspect that is reflected
> in the low hgb and high mch. My platelets just keep falling year after year,
> though seem to be stabilizing.
>
> Any comments would be appreciated.
Being from Australia, I can't readily convert from US units to modern
S.I. units, but here are my thoughts for all they're worth.
The ranges you are comparing your results to are generally reference
ranges, not normal ranges, ie about 90-95% of normal ("healthy")
individuals fall within the ranges. But this also means that 5-10% of
healthy individuals fall outside these ranges. Normal range is a
personal thing, and your values may reflect this. Also, I don't know
what the doctors are like in the US, but in Australia, they tend not to
like misleading or confusing patients, so are generally trustworthy.
Suffering from gastroenteritis, even mildly, may affect the
electrolytes, eg sodium, as the body compensates for lost water and so
on in the feces. Again a normal response, and a indication that your
body is probably functioning normally. Your Hemoglobin is the same as
mine, and I'm 39 years old, and healthy. About your pernicious anemia,
other factors may lead to a raised mch, I note your MCV is on the upper
normal side, this may be affected by certain prescription drugs, regular
alcohol intake, and so on (I am not suggesting you fall into either
category, but I use them as examples). Again, trust your doctors. Just
because they may not agree with you, doesn't mean that they're against
you.
Regards, and relax.
Marco
Halterb
<wish you had posted chol/hdl values so we could spank you
about them.>
Total cholesterol runs 140 to 160, and HDLs 33 to 34. Can't understand why I
can't get the HDLs up a bit, but I'm trying.
Halterb
"normal" ranges, something I suppose I had not adequately considered. He also
added:
< trust your doctors. Just
because they may not agree with you, doesn't mean that they're against
you.>
This raises an interesting subject. Doctors may be on different "wavelengths"
than their patients. It reminds me of the service policy on my TV--when I
complained I was told a green picture for the first 15 minutes did not concern
them since after that time my picture was acceptable; I didn't
agree--acceptable wasn't what I was satisfied with. Same with medicine. Sure, I
may be operating with, i.e., hemoglobin 13.7, but I suspect I would be a lot
more robust at 16. My feeling was that there must be clues in my bloodwork that
would point the way toward a higher level of wellness (I do run up to 13 miles
at a time and wouldn't mind at all having the ability to carry a bit more
oxygen with me). "A little below normal" isn't any more satisfactory to me than
my green TV--I just happen to think I'm operating a bit below my potential.
Thelabgirl
a better term.
Don't hemoglobin and hematocrit "normal values" differ from elevation to
elevation?
Would a "normal" value for sea level hct be different than a "normal" value for
the rocky mountains?? I should think so.
Tami E.
http://www.meetandplay.com
http://www.dmoz.org Editor
Louisnoel
also use "Normal Range" and Reference Range" interchangeably, although
throughout the world there are certain "normals". Having skimmed over the
results, the only thing that I find troubling is the decreasing platelet
count. Platelet count normals in out Lab run 150 - 450. As you can see, this
is quite a range. If your platelet count continues to decrease, I would be
very concerned. All other values are OK.
One thing you must remember is that your lab results depend on a multitude of
factors and you really need a good baseline level to determine if you are
having pathological problems.
The bottom line is "Talk to your Doctor"
Louis H. Noel MT(ASCP)
QAS
AC
>I am not totally uninformed about blood tests, and I HAVE discussed them with
>my doctors. They consider me healthy and my tests normal, even though when I
>look at them I see numerous highs and lows. I am male, white, 65. Tests below
>were run while having gasteroenteritis but are similar to my general pattern
>(except for high glucose which was after 14 hours with no food other than a
>couple of ginger ales 6 hours before).
>
>Glucose* 125
>BUN 16
>Creatinine .9
>Sodium* 137
>Potassium 3.9
>Chloride 102
>CO2 26
>Anion gap 9
>CPK 92
>
>WBC 4.7
>RBC* 4.33
>Hemoglob* 13.7
>Hct* 40.5
>MCV 93.5
>MCH* 31.5
>MCHC 33.7
>RDW 12.4
>Platelets* 122
>Mean Plat Vol* 8.9
>
>Difs:
>Absolute Gran 3.8
>Abs Lymphs* .4
>Abs Monos .47
>Abs Eos 0
>Abs Baso 0
>Neut%* 80
>Lymph* 9
>Mono* 10
>Eosin* 0
>Baso 0
>
>* means out of normal range or in sodium, right at bottom of range
>
>These results don't look to me like a robust individual operating at peak
>level. There is a family history of pernicious, so I suspect that is reflected
>in the low hgb and high mch. My platelets just keep falling year after year,
>though seem to be stabilizing.
>
>Any comments would be appreciated.
You're probably worrying unnecessarily.
Firstly, pernicious anaemia (which is what I assume you mean) would
hardly be diagnosed by a drop in MCH (and since haemoglobin is used to
caluclate MCH its not unusual for low MCH to occur with low
haemoglobin -your haemoglobin by the way would be in the normal range
for the lab in which I work).
I find it hard to comment on your results because many of them are
expressed in non-SI units which are only used in America but you have
to keep in mind that "normal ranges" are usually based on the range
found in 95% of a healthy population -that means that for any 1 test
5% of "normal" people will not have a value in the normal range. When
you rattle off 20 or more results as you have above the chances of
some of them being outside the normal range become quite high. You
also state that you'rer 65 which is an age probably not well
represented in the group from which the "normal range" was obtained.
Your haemoglobin for example may well be in the normal range for a
sample population of 65 year-old males but "abnormal" for a 20 y.o.
male.
I'd certainly keep an eye on my platelet count if I were you and your
glucose levels but I wouldn't be planning my funeral just yet!!
Cheers,
AC.
Marco
Halterb wrote:
>
> Marco responded to my post pointing out, as others have, the nature of the
> "normal" ranges, something I suppose I had not adequately considered.
>
> This raises an interesting subject. Doctors may be on different "wavelengths"
> than their patients. Sure, I may be operating with, i.e., hemoglobin 13.7, but I suspect I would be a lot more robust at 16. My feeling was that there must be clues in my bloodwork that would point the way toward a higher level of wellness (I do run up to 13 miles at a time and wouldn't mind at all having the ability to carry a bit more
> oxygen with me). "A little below normal" isn't any more satisfactory to me than
> my green TV--I just happen to think I'm operating a bit below my potential.
Your body will adjust to a Hb level of 13.7, because that is normal for
yourself. As I said in my previous post, normal ranges are personal
things, a level of 16, for you, would probably not lead to inreased
robustness, but may increase the viscosity of your blood, putting a
strain on your circulatory system, even for a healthy person like
yourself, who runs 13 miles at a time (I have trouble with three flights
of stairs). If you were to artificially raise your Hb, and there are
ways to do this, your body would reduce it back close to 13.7, because
that is normal for you. As for doctors sometimes being on a different
wavelength, I agree with you, but be realistic, they may not want to
artificially increase your Hb, because it may do more harm than good,
for the sake of pleasing your desire to feel more robust. I hope I can
run 13 miles when I am 65. My complements to you.
Regards
Marco
Halterb
answered the email copy previously as it seemed like only a private message.
And, since there have been so many responses, and some similarities, I will
reply to AC's now and add some general comments.
First, one of the reasons I wanted someone to "help me understand blood test
results" is that I have had so much confusing information. Example, from AC:
>Firstly, pernicious anaemia (which is what I assume you mean) would
>hardly be diagnosed by a drop in MCH (and since haemoglobin is used to
>caluclate MCH its not unusual for low MCH to occur with low
>haemoglobin<
Actually my MCH of 31.5 was high, not low. And, according to the Miller Keane
Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine and Nursing, "MCH is increased in
macrocytic (pernicious) anemia and decreased in hypochromic anemia."
AC continues:
>your haemoglobin by the way would be in the normal range
>for the lab in which I work).<
This is another one of the confusing elements. The reports from the labs doing
my tests have always shown the normal male range 14 to 18. So 13.7 would seem
to be clearly below normal, although, granted, a very small amount below
normal.
Now, in my wondering why my hemoglobin, even when I was that "healthy 20 year
old male" has always run low, looking at the other "blood count" figures, it
seemed they were pointing in the direction that my blood cells were a bit
large--at the same time as my hemoglobin was a bit low. Since I have a family
history of pernicious anemia (even one death from it), my assumption is that
there is a genetic quirk likely restricting my utilization of dietary vitamin
B-12, the nutrient usually indicted as the culprit in pernicious anemia. When I
have used B-12 tablets sublingually (tending toward direct absorption into the
blood stream as opposed to digested from the stomach) both my hemoglobin and
platelet level rise considerably (hgb 14.5, platelets 160,000) and my color and
perhaps sense of well being improve as well. (One respondent didn't seem to
pick up the difference between sublingual and digestive absorption feeling that
only injections would bypass the digestive process.) This seems to confirm to
me the genetic element, rather than either age or deviation in "normal"
range--but the profession doesn't seem to react.
Most important, I suspect that I, and countless others, are relegated to living
lives below their potential because of untreated conditions not severe enough
to actually be a disease state. It's like my TV service policy where a green
picture at first is acceptable to the seller of the policy, but not to the
buyer of the policy. Why do we have to get good and sick before things are
addressed?
I wondered if there were similar circumstances surrounding some of my other
readings.
I'll give the B-12 another and more sustained try and see what my next tests
show. Just because I'm 65 years old, I'm not convinced I have to accept
declining lab results as a matter of course (maybe the profession feels that
way, but I don't). As a person who runs up to 13 miles at a time, I can use all
the hemoglobin I can muster to carry oxygen around.
I loved the closing of AC's post,
>I wouldn't be planning my funeral just yet!!
It gives me the opportunity to point out that this senior is not trying to plan
for his funeral, but for his marathon!
michael...@my-deja.com
<19990729072634...@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
Dear Halterb,
Regarding your concern about your laboratory
tests, I offer the following observations:
Your chemistry test results are pretty consistent
with what one would expect from a healthy person.
The normal range or reference range for glucose
that accompanies a chemistry profile is almost
always a fasting range. Also, expected values
increase with age. A value of 125 mg/dl is
certainly acceptable for a random sample. If you
are worried about diabetes, a two hour post
parandial glucose, glucose tolerance test, or
glycohemoglobin (hemoglobin A1C) would be more
reliable indicators of such a condition. However,
in the absence of any symptoms or familial
history, it is unlikely that your physician will
request these tests.
Sodium and other electrolyte values, as well as
many other analytes, may vary considerably among
various laboratories, test instruments, and even
from one run to another on the same analyzer.
Ideally, normal ranges should reflect what the
laboratory has found to be representative of
healthy individuals from the population it serves.
In practice, this is often not the case. The flags
to which you refer (highs and lows) are seen so
commonly in healthy people that your physician has
become accustomed to essentially disregarding them
when the deviations are slight and the clinical
findings are normal. This is to his credit. A too
often unheeded adage in medicine is to "treat the
patient not the lab work". Although you are to be
commended for educating yourself on this matter,
you need to appreciate how few people can submit
to a determination of a dozen or more analytes and
have no values outside of the published "normal"
ranges. The aforementioned variables and normal
diurnal variations of the biochemistry of healthy
individuals are simple too great to warrant
feeling anxious over the occasional outlying
value.
Your hematology tests may be an area of concern to
your doctor if you experience any further drop in
your platelet count. Bleeding can result from
drastically reduced platelet counts, although
yours was certainly not at that point as of your
last testing. Many factors can affect one's
platelet count. Any workup along these lines would
probably include a consultation with a physician
who specializes in hematology. He would likely
request a laboratory examination of the bone
marrow, as well as other tests to attempt to find
the cause of what you have described as a
progressively declining platelet count. An
experienced clinician also takes into account any
medications that a patient is taking or has taken
when trying to explain such changes. Perhaps, as
you have observed, this has stabilized and will
require no further investigation.
As far as the diagnosis of pernicious anemia goes,
it is doubtful that your physician will request
further testing to explain a hemoglobin value that
is simply unacceptable to you because you feel it
should be higher. However, in the event that you
do secure the necessary (in most states) doctor's
order, a serum B12 (and usually folate) level,
serum gastrin, and sometimes a Schilling test can
be performed to establish or rule out a diagnosis
of PA.
The only aspect of your lab work that seems to
indicate sickness is your WBC differential. The
relative increase in neutrophils is probably
accounted for by the gastroenteritis of which you
complained. Serious infections usually cause such
a phenomenon, but are accompanied by a high total
WBC count.
In lieu of further medical intervention, you may
determine that it is in your best interest to
continue the vitamins that have afforded you an
increase in stamina, and enjoy your good health.
Best Regards,
Michael Schmitt, CLS(NCA), MT(AAB)
ml...@ibm.net
Bob/Judy Dilworth
wrong, you hematologists out there, but isn't the MCV much higher in
pernicious anemia (to the tune of >108 or so) and isn't macrocytosis the
predominant picture in this disease, at least on the blood film?
Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP)
Microbiology, with a couple of years doing CBC's a while back.....
Kathy
>>WBC 4.7
>>RBC* 4.33
>>Hemoglob* 13.7
>>Hct* 40.5
>>MCV 93.5
>>MCH* 31.5
>>MCHC 33.7
>>RDW 12.4
>>Platelets* 122
>>Mean Plat Vol* 8.9
>>
>>Difs:
>>Absolute Gran 3.8
>>Abs Lymphs* .4
>>Abs Monos .47
>>Abs Eos 0
>>Abs Baso 0
>>Neut%* 80
>>Lymph* 9
>>Mono* 10
>>Eosin* 0
>>Baso 0
>>
>>* means out of normal range or in sodium, right at bottom of range
>>
Actually my MCH of 31.5 was high, not low. And, according to the Miller Keane
Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine and Nursing, "MCH is increased in
macrocytic (pernicious) anemia and decreased in hypochromic anemia."
In PA majority of cells are macrocytic-normochromic. Your MCV is in the
"normal range" of 80-100fL. Your MCHC which indicates whether blood cells are
normochromic, hypochromic or hyperchromic indicates that your cells are
normochromic. Below 31%indicates hypochromic. Above 36% indicates
hyperchromic. The MCH indicates the average amount of hemoglobin in the red
cell. An elevated MCH occurs in macrocytic anemias. MCH normal range is
27-31pg. Yours is barely over normal. The ranges that I give are more like
reference ranges not specific to the lab where you had your blood work done.
That is why you need to heed their normal ranges when viewing your results.
>Now, in my wondering why my hemoglobin, even when I was that "healthy 20 year
>old male" has always run low, looking at the other "blood count" figures, it
>seemed they were pointing in the direction that my blood cells were a bit
>large--at the same time as my hemoglobin was a bit low.
My reference states hemoglobin as 14-17g/dL for men. "there is a slight
decrease in hemoglobin level after 50 years of age". Maybe your hgb has always
been low. My eos have always been high. Did the lab look at a smear of your
cells? You make no mention of any RBC morphology. Where I work, we would not
have looked at a smear because your values don't indicate any reason to do so.
All your values fall within our normal ranges.
>It's like my TV service policy where a green
>picture at first is acceptable to the seller of the policy, but not to the
>buyer of the policy. Why do we have to get good and sick before things are
>addressed?
You seem very knowledgeable about your potential for PA which is a great way
to be. I don't see any green picture on the screen. Take care
Kathy-MLT(ASCP) in RI
to send me e-mail remove the"know"
Halterb
her question, no, I'm not aware that the lab did a smear.
You've all been great in responding to my request to "please help me understand
blood test results." I do feel I have a much better understanding now, although
I can't help but think that there can be little clues in essentially normal
reports that might point toward ways to deal with conditions preventing us from
operating at our individual all out maximum potential.
Beth Ruiter
and WBCs are often early indications of PA. In light of the family
history, an Anti parietal cell antibody test may be indicatd if these
levels are low.
Frankly, to me you sound in good health. The best indicator of normality
is how you feel.
Good Luck,
Beth L. Ruiter MT(ASCP)
Bob/Judy Dilworth
ranges are a calculation based on individual instruments. It is done
statistically and operates on a "bell-curve" setup, wherein the normal
range is plus or minus two standard deviations from the mean result.
This used to be obtained by running a set amount (thirty rings a bell)
of specimens, calculating the mean and figuring two SD's from that as
the normal range. Then there's coefficient of variation, and other
statistical things thrown into the brew to make sure that your range is
accurate (that's in QC 202 which I didn't take, heh heh). I don't
remember all of the details (our chemists out there are much more
knowledgeable about all of this) but suffice it to say, the method
works. You can be at the outer edges of the bell curve and still be
"normal." Hemoglobin also varies depending upon the hydration of the
individual. The elevation a person lives at also makes a difference
(say Denver, or Peru vs. New York City) as RBC's compensate for the
level of oxygen in the atmosphere (people in the higher levels of the
Andes run higher hematocrits on the whole than a population in NYC, so
therefore their normal hemoglobin range might be different with the same
instrument). Patients with edema run lower hemoglobins until their
excess fluid is excreted (my husband's grandmother's hemoglobin varied
by four grams in two days after the Lasix she was given for congestive
heart failure caused her to urinate the excess fluid).
So you see, it's not that cut and dried. Hope this didn't confuse
things further.
Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP)
Microbiology (but faintly remembering chemistry)
Dpagates
160-180) is great. But if you find a way to raise your HDL vs LDL, please let
me know! I have same problem and most literature I see mentions ways to reduce
total total cholesterol. Hrmph!
Don
Halterb
> if you find a way to raise your HDL vs LDL, please let
>me know! I have same problem and most literature I see mentions ways to
>reduce
>total total cholesterol. Hrmph!<
Actually, this would be off-topic for this newsgroup (maybe better in
sci.med.cardiology or sci.med. nutrition) but here's my thinking>
It looks to me like the only type of cholesterol the body can make is LDL
(someone correct me if my assumption is wrong). So, if I want to raise my HDL I
will have to ingest some. Therefore, I am trying increasing the proportion of
mono and poly unsaturated fats in my diet through about 20% more peanut butter,
safflower oil, olive oil, etc. We'll see if my next blood test reports any
change, other that what I fear would be an increase in total cholesterol and no
change in HDL!
My peanut butter comes in sandwiches, my safflower oil in mixing my own Good
Seasons Italian salad dressing and my olive oil in my "modified butter"
(courtesy controversial nutritionish Adelle Davis) which melts real butter at
room temperature and adds an equal or greater quantity of unsaturated oil,
mixing and re-refrigerating until hard. (It is my understanding that
hydrogenated margerine is very bad for a person, and that corn oil can block
the action of a person's natural niacin defeating the purpose of an attempt to
reduce cholesterol.)
Hope this helps.
di...@my-deja.com
hal...@aol.com (Halterb) wrote:
> I am not totally uninformed about blood tests, and I HAVE discussed
I commend you on being so well informed about your body. However, I
feel I must caution you. It is important for you to listen to what your
doctors say. If you question the validity of the results, you may want
to perform repeat testing on a new sample. Normal ranges vary with
population, location, age, sex, and race as I'm sure you know.
If you do not trust in your doctor, find another one.
It is the role of the clinical lab technologist to perform tests and
report results to physicians. The responsibility of diagnosing falls to
the physician, NOT the technologist. I do believe as professionals we
are very knowledgeable, and may draw educated conclusions from test
results. Physicians often consult us. However, it is not ethical for us
to discuss our findings/opinions with the "patient".
As technologists we should remember to conduct ourselves in an ethical
manner. If we were meant to diagnose, there would be an "M.D." at the
end of our names instead of "MT(ASCP)". This type of forum is
potentially dangerous and may unnecessarily distress an individual.
An Ethical Medical Technologist
Tami Evers
HEY..there's *really* nothing wrong with these results.
You know how the old saying goes.."if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Same goes
with lab tests. You don't want to do them if you don't REALLY need them..
because there is always risk of receiveing abnormal or slightly abnormal
results that mean nothing in the big picture. Then you worry for no reason.
If someone is going to go out on a limb and ask for interpretations, I assume
this means that they didn't get the explanations from the doc, like they
thought they should.
Chances are, if halterb had not received information on this newsgroup, he or
she would have gone elsewhere for information.
If you dig deep enough, you're going to find something that causes you concern
about your lab tests.
My point to halterb is that .. your lab tests are really not very abnormal. If
anyone of us on a given day had our blood drawn, we might also find a test
result low or slightly high. I realize you are just watching out for yourself
so that you do not develop pernicious anemia, but docs probably won't treat you
until they have reason for concern.
Physicians can't just *up and order* lab tests whenever they want to anymore.
For certain lab tests, there has to be a diagnoses code, or else the patients
insurance won't cover the tests.
If you want to check those lab tests on a yearly basis, I would try the health
fairs. There are trained professionals available to discuss your lab tests
with you, usually.
That last statement may have contradicted what I said earlier about not doing
lab tests unless you need them... but the health fairs are here to stay.. so
you might as well take advantage of them.
Halterb, you mentioned that you want to increase your energy level?? Try
exercise. I recommend racquetball, but if you have any health concerns, check
with your physician first, since racquetball can be physically demanding.
I've played racquetball since I was 11. I'm 33 now and I've never burned out
it because it is so much fun. You don't have to play hard, just find someone
else at your level.
I know 70 and 80 year olds who are still playing racquetball. Granted, I bet
they didn't *start* playing at 80, though.
Enjoy your life and do something fun each day. That's my recommendation. And
don't over analyze your lab tests.
Before you take anyone's advice, (other than your physician) educate yourself.
Know the advantages and disadvantages of holistic treatments, if you are going
to try them.
Tami E.
E-force Racquetball (you wanna win or what?)
Halterb
I suppose it can be summed up in her closing comment:
> And
>don't over analyze your lab tests.
>
>Before you take anyone's advice, (other than your physician) educate
>yourself.<
I understand the danger of overanalyzing--but isn't there also a risk of
results being underanalyzed--little clues that would make a big difference if
followed up early on? And regarding the exercise suggestion, I think I
mentioned at one point that I run up to 13 miles at a time, normally 2 mi 3
days a week and 6 one day.
I found an interesting site on blood testing for one type of exerciser,
cyclists. It's at
http://www.sportsci.org/news/news9703/AISblood.html. Others might be interested
in it too. It points out the role of improved hemoglobin levels.
Marco
Halterb wrote:
>
>
> followed up early on? And regarding the exercise suggestion, I think I
> mentioned at one point that I run up to 13 miles at a time, normally 2 mi 3
> days a week and 6 one day.
>
>
Halterb,
Reading this post reminded me that there is a condition called March
Haemoglobinuria. In some cases it may cause anaemia. It is induced in
long distance runners; the physical impact of the soles of the feet on
the ground damages red cells within the capillaries, shotening their
life span considerably. Have you ever noticed traces of blood in your
urine, or had this tested for, especially after one of your long runs?
This is not serious, but may explain your marginal haemoglobin. Just a
thought, not a diagnosis.
regards
Marco
Halterb
also came across this information in my research some time ago but have never
had any evidence that it was a problem for me. It might actually emphasize the
need for runners to maintain hemoglobin at an optimum level within reason.
Magilla
No-it emphasises the need for runners to show common sense...and I
also agree with previous posts that suggest you are over-analysing a
bunch of essentially normal results.