cholesterol

[73ss454]

I had my yearly physical this week and called for the blood work results today. The nurse said it's within limits. I guess that's OK but maybe someone like Rich can tell me in plain English about the results.

I'm 6'4" 265 lbs. Total Cholesterol 163
LDL 104
HDL 38
PSA 1.0
Tri's 105

Thanks

[REWahoo]

You're gonna die...

[73ss454]

Originally Posted by REWahoo

You're gonna die...

And when I do I gotta feeling I'm going to meet you there and it's gonna be HOT!

[REWahoo]

Originally Posted by 73ss454

And when I do I gotta feeling I'm going to meet you there and it's gonna be HOT!

You coming to Texas?

[73ss454]

Originally Posted by REWahoo

You coming to Texas?

Yeah, I'll stop by to pick you up on the way.

[Rich_in_Tampa]

Originally Posted by 73ss454

I had my yearly physical this week and called for the blood work results today. The nurse said it's within limits. I guess that's OK but maybe someone like Rich can tell me in plain English about the results.

I'm 6'4" 265 lbs. Total Cholesterol 163
LDL 104
HDL 38
PSA 1.0
Tri's 105

Numbers look good to me, but understand the context: a middle aged man who is "average" for the USA has about a 1% heart attack or sudden death rate annually. It goes up with age. Cholesterol is only one risk and many people with normal cholesterol levels get heart attacks. It's usually expressed as a 5- or 10-year mortality of about 5% or 10%.

If you isolate choleserol and related lipid stuff, you can vary that projection from, say, 10% down as low as maybe 6%, or from 10% up to maybe 20% -- over 10 years. Bottom line is that playing with cholesterol even under the best circumstances allows you to improve odds by fractions of a percent per year. I'm excluding extreme situations here.

Anyhow, your numbers look good. A couple of additional prognostic tricks help sort out how important that HDL (good cholesterol -- it's a little bit low). One is to look at the ratio of total to low: 4.3, where under 4.5 is normal. The other is to look at total minus HDL which is 125 (normal). So all in all, your lipid levels look good.

Of course none of this has any effect on lifestyle, body weight and waist circumference, family history, diet, conditioning. blood pressure, etc. It's just a reassuring result for the blood lipid piece. (The PSA, of course, relates to presence of advancing prostate cancer and is normal; that test is also limited in its accuracy in a screening setting.)

Hope that's helpful.

[73ss454]

Thanks Rich, so what do you think I should get the HDL up to. I've heard that more exercise will get it higher.

[ERD50]

ooops, the experts posted while I was typing, nevermind....

Originally Posted by 73ss454

I'm 6'4" 265 lbs. Total Cholesterol 163
LDL 104
HDL 38
PSA 1.0
Tri's 105

Thanks

my notes say:

Total Chol 100 ~ 200
HDL > 60 good
LDL 0 ~ 99
Triglycerides 0~149

above in mg/dL

Tot Chol/HDL < 4.5 good

LDL/HDL< 3 good

your Tot Chol/HDL = 163/104 = 1.57 ; < 4.5 good
your LDL/HDL = 104/38 = 2.74 ; < 3 good

So it looks to me that your LDL is a bit high, but other factors are good. My numbers may be out-of-date, I haven't re-researched it in a while.

You are still gonna die.

Don't know about PSA #'s - ERD50

[Marquette]

Originally Posted by 73ss454

Thanks Rich, so what do you think I should get the HDL up to. I've heard that more exercise will get it higher.

My doc said it's the only thing that will get it higher.

[Rich_in_Tampa]

Originally Posted by 73ss454

Thanks Rich, so what do you think I should get the HDL up to. I've heard that more exercise will get it higher.

If I had no other risks, I wouldn't personally spend a while lot of time fussing over it. Diminishing returns. Certain statins and niacin could raise the HDL but we're splitting hairs, and the risks would liklely exceed the benefits. But that's me. See if your doctor agrees, knowing more about you than we do.

Ya might work on the BMI of 32 . It won't help your HDL, but might make the others a little better, and it's an independent risk even without considering the cholesterol.

[73ss454]

Thanks Rich/Guys, I don't smoke, drink alcohol, but I do like to eat. Didn't we have a thread here about BMI, I think I'll have to read up a bit and get that in order. I do exercise 1 hour a day. 1/2 hour treadmill, 1/2 hour bike ride. Maybe I'll have to pick that up a bit to lets say 4 hours a day. (heh)

[73ss454]

Well, I found your calculator Rich, looks like I am a fat boy, gotta work on that.

[REWahoo]

Originally Posted by 73ss454

Well, I found your calculator Rich, looks like I am a fat boy...

Must be an echo in here...

[unclemick]

Originally Posted by REWahoo

You're gonna die...

Yep - 84.6. I got my number from an IRS table. Who needs a lab test/Doctor.

The IRS knows - Right?

.

heh heh heh - crap! I'm gonna be 65 here shortly and I don't even want to go get my 'free welcome to Medicare tests.'

[mark500]

Tim Russert's clinical information from public information:

LDL at time of death: 68
HDL: 37 (used to be 20)
Serum glucose: 104, maybe had a borderline abnormal GTT.
In 1998, a coronary artery score of 210, indicating he had coronary artery disease. He apparently had no follow-up coronary calcium scans to detect progression. (it's controversial whether to do them or not)
He had a recent excercise tolerance test that was negative. Apparently, an EKG stress test.
He was overweight and working on it, as many people are.
His BP was under control.
At autopsy, the severity of his coronary artery disease surprised his physicians.


The prevention of lethal events from CAD is somewhat murky. Some things are well established. Others are not.
Check out the comments:

Media mulls Russert's death as cardiologists weigh in

[windsurf]

I've always exercised (a lot) and my HDL didn't improve until I ate fewer refined carbs and sugar and started on fish oil. Used to be in the 40's and now, for a few years since the aforementioned changes, it's mid 60's to over 80.

[windsurf]

As Rich points out, cholesterol profile is only one marker (and an increasingly suspect one at that–my observation). Dr. Oz (on Oprah all the time) advises that height to waist circumference ratio is an important indicator of metabolic syndrome.
Metabolic Syndrome
I had understood that if your waist was smaller than your hips, you were not in syndrome territory (e.g. 41 inch hip circumference vs. 38 inch waist. Oz said that better advice is to make sure your waist measurement is no more than half your height–e.g. 72 inches tall (6 feet), your waist should be no more than 36.

[Gotadimple]

Originally Posted by REWahoo

You're gonna die...

Yeah, but not before I make sure I spend as much of that nest egg as possible.

-- Rita

[Buckeye]

Several of the articles about Russert's death have mentioned that waist size is very important to cardiovascular health. Greater than 35 inches for women and greater than 40 inches for men is "bad."

I've also read that the chest waist ratio is important for men's cardiovascular health with the goal of keeping the chest measurement greater than the waist measurement.

I personally would be concerned if my husband's HDL was below 50 (which it is not).

[mark500]

Used to be in the 40's and now, for a few years since the aforementioned changes, it's mid 60's to over 80.

Your HDL went from 40's to 80's after only fish oil and eating less carbohydrates? That is a highly unusual result. No studies have shown that much effect on HDL by consuming fish oil and less starch.