Cholesterol values - question for the Doctors

192 posts in this topic

Update...

I got my cholesterol tested again, this time early morning after 12hr of fasting, previous test was faulty because done just after lunch. Here the new outcome:

 

total cholesterol: 209 (still slightly higher, before was 242, optimum is <200)

HDL, "good" cholesterol: 69.8 (was 77, optimum is >60)

LDL, "bad" cholesterol: 125 (was 161, optimum is <130)

trygliceridi: 70 (was 208, optimum is <150)

 

it seems they are good.

They also tested a bunch of other parameters. It seems they are also all good.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go, 6 months after I started taking "red rice" following advice from the Dr because cholesterol was high, I took my blood test again and here the result:

 

Cholesterol 187, was 209, ideal <200

Triglicerid 38, was 70, ideal <200

HDL 70.1, was 69.8, ideal >35

LDL 109, was 125, ideal <160

 

No bad. I'll speak with the Dr next week, I expect she'll say "change nothing, keep taking red rice".

Any Dr here? what do you think?

 

I'm 47, male, been perfect BMI all my life 177cm/66kg, always done much sport.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't suppose you need to be a doctor to read that all your levels are within the guidelines. Keep fit and stay healthy!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the question for your doc, and for your long term results is:

Why are the optimum/ideal numbers different now compared to six months ago?

 

New test methods?

New guidelines?

New lab?

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HH_Sailor said:

Why are the optimum/ideal numbers different now compared to six months ago?

 

No, the reccomended values have not changed, the measured value have.

Of course I don't why the values are now different. But I know what I changed:

I consume even less fat, and simple carbs, than before (mind you, I was taking very little of them anyway)

I take "red rice", a supplement (Dr advice 6-7 months ag)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Gambatte said:

 

I take "red rice", a supplement (Dr advice 6-7 months ag)

 

Have you asked your doctor if he's googled 'roter Reis' and if he has any opinion of the list of dangers associated with it? Here's just the top example.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Gambatte said:

 

No, the reccomended values have not changed, the measured value have.

 

 

I disagree with your statement.... B)

 

1 hour ago, Gambatte said:

Cholesterol 187, was 209, ideal <200

Triglicerid 38, was 70, ideal <200

HDL 70.1, was 69.8, ideal >35

LDL 109, was 125, ideal <160

 

On 24.3.2020, 10:30:16, Gambatte said:

total cholesterol: 209 (still slightly higher, before was 242, optimum is <200)------ I see no change in optimum here

trygliceridi: 70 (was 208, optimum is <150)                          but here

HDL, "good" cholesterol: 69.8 (was 77, optimum is >60)       and here

LDL, "bad" cholesterol: 125 (was 161, optimum is <130)       and here

 

 

Yes, your values have changed - but also the optimum / ideal values changed as well.

My question for your doc remains : 

  New test methods?

  New guidelines?

  New lab?

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HH, ok you are right.

I don't know why the opimum "changed", I can only guess depending whom you ask you get different answer, this happens all the time in medical stuff. No?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HH_Sailor said:

New test methods?

  New guidelines?

  New lab?

It may well be a mix of all of those. Guidelines vary between professional societies, even for "simple" parameters like blood pressure. E. g. last time I checked (years ago) the American norm values were slightly lower than the German ones). Norm value recommendations are also routinely updated. Different labs may also use different methods which may result in different norm ranges. And as science is evolving opinions may change. E. g. as a student I still learned that elevated cholesterol levels on their own i. e. without any other risk factors (e. g. smoking, high blood pressure, adipositas, diabetes...) were nothing to worry about. Later the prevailing opionion was that it depended on the ratio between HDL/LDL and even later that has also been questioned. I´ve been retired for 25 years and haven´t updated my knowledge so I have no idea what´s the current trend. But just to give you a yardstick: if you think that Cholesterol of 209 is high you´re misguided. I remember patients with levels between 700 and 900 (those had to be treated by apheresis though, which is basically a method of removing cholesterol from their blood by centrifugation). My personal unscientific take on it is that if it took decades to prove that cholesterol in the absence of other risk factors is indeed posing a risk that risk can´t be very high because otherwise statisticians would have detected it earlier given the amount of research effort spent on that question. Of course, if there are odditional risk factors it´s a different story. What also seems to be agreed on is that physical exercise is greatly reducing the risk.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gambatte said:

Here we go, 6 months after I started taking "red rice" following advice from the Dr because cholesterol was high, I took my blood test again and here the result:

 

Cholesterol 187, was 209, ideal <200

Triglicerid 38, was 70, ideal <200

HDL 70.1, was 69.8, ideal >35

LDL 109, was 125, ideal <160

 

No bad. I'll speak with the Dr next week, I expect she'll say "change nothing, keep taking red rice".

Any Dr here? what do you think?

 

I'm 47, male, been perfect BMI all my life 177cm/66kg, always done much sport.

What is your resting heart rate?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RenegadeFurther said:

What is your resting heart rate?

43. It's probably this low because I've been doing very much endurance sport for 30+ yr.

Why did you ask?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW do you guys know more about this "red rice" that I've been taking since the Dr recommended it 7 months ago?

It's a supplement, not a medicine. But from some random sites online (like the one posted by silty1, thanks again) it's supposed to have side effects (I haven't noticed any), including liver damage after long term usage, and some health care professionals strongly discourage to take it.

Well, the Dr recommended so that's that, and I will ask again, but of course I'm curious...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Gambatte said:

Well, the Dr recommended so that's that, and I will ask again, but of course I'm curious...

I have zero trust in doctors in Germany when it comes to supplements. I have never imagined that there would be so many quackery here!

In case of red rice, there is no study that shows any benefit. Weird enough, the main claims are not even related with cholesterol.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't all dietary fiber meant to help with cholesterol levels?  I'm sure I've read that a thousand times.  Any whole grains are supposed to help, I think.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dessa_dangerous said:

isn't all dietary fiber meant to help with cholesterol levels?  I'm sure I've read that a thousand times.  Any whole grains are supposed to help, I think.

Yes, to a degree - especially oats. However, you can´t expect wonders of it. They just provide adsorbing surface for fat and cholesterol so that less of it is resorbed and more disposed of via the toilet. However, cholesterol in food is only partly responsible for your cholesterol levels. A lot is produced by your own body.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK, and as others here have pointed out, there are many factors which need to be considered when trying to work out your risk of having a heart attack or of developing heart disease, cholesterol levels being only one of them.

I had my bloods done recently, everthing from vitamin D to white cell levels and, of course, HDL, TRIG and LDL levels. I sent all the results to one of my brothers in Australia who is a retired GP, he plugged them into some kind of formula they apparently use there, and came up with the result that I have a '5% chance of an event within the next 15 years'. An 'event' would be a heart attack or stroke I believe. No mention of severity of such event.

To improve my chances (!) I would have to do something about reducing my slightly high levels of 'bad' cholesterol.

 

My brother wasn't too concerned; he'd be much more worried, and I would be too, if I were a smoker.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I will hijack this thread.

 

So for the last 3 months I have been doing a bit of fitness (prepare myself if I ever caught Covid),

 

So I calculated my max heart rate (220 - age = 174)

 

So my max heart rate should be 174.

 

However when I exercise I can maintain a heart rate of 176 for over 30 minutes. This is HIIT exercise.

 

Also during HIIT I can get a heart rate of over 200 bpm.

 

Is this healthy for someone who has had a heart attack?

 

I will ask my cardio next time I see him but wondering if I am over doing it.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RenegadeFurther said:

Is this healthy for someone who has had a heart attack?

 

TT is always my first go-to for medical advice.  I then look for legal advice.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now