Puzzled about Cholesterol numbers

U

Unregistered

Guest
I'm really baffled. Had a fasting cholesterol screening during a wellness program at work yesterday. As background, I'm female in the late 50's, 5'8" and 125 lb.

These were my numbers:
HDL = 100
TC/HDL ration = 2.43
LDL - it only shows that I'm below 100
Triglyceride = 128
TC = 243!!!!

How can all my other numbers be good, but TC is 243!!!

I can't find my screening from 2 years ago, and it's been a long time since I had a full work up. But I've never been over 200 on TC.

What's going on?
 
Unregistered said:
I'm really baffled. Had a fasting cholesterol screening during a wellness program at work yesterday. As background, I'm female in the late 50's, 5'8" and 125 lb.

These were my numbers:
HDL = 100
TC/HDL ration = 2.43
LDL - it only shows that I'm below 100
Triglyceride = 128
TC = 243!!!!

How can all my other numbers be good, but TC is 243!!!

I can't find my screening from 2 years ago, and it's been a long time since I had a full work up. But I've never been over 200 on TC.

What's going on?
Click to expand...

I am not a doctor - hopefully one can provide some insight. That said, my understanding has been that TC = HDL + LDL + tri./5, so you should be able to get LDL using this formlua:

LDL = TC - HDL - tri./5

So, assuming I did the math correctly, that formula yields an LDL of around 117. Not sure why your LDL is allegedly under 100.
 
What's going on is that you're worrying too much about an index that we still don't really understand. I will say, that your HDL is pretty protective and I think that's about all you should take away from it.

Also, the numbers derived from a drop of fingerstick blood is, well unlikely to withstand Standard Error scrutiny.....the SE of the mean is wider on the fingerstick methods, than of the full lab methods.
 
My old doctor was very concerned about my cholesterol and he had me on medicine for it. He retired and then passed away and now I have a new doctor and the first thing he did was to take me off all drugs for cholesterol. I'v been seeing my new doctor for a year now and he still doesn't consider my cholesterol and issue. BTW my numbers are worse then yours.

The only thing my doctor will say is that there is some new research on cholesterol.
 
Last edited:
We all die from something - some from blunders by the President, others from a simple heart attack but there is no one alive today who was alive when Sherman marched to the Sea - though many pretend they were.

Enjoy life - you can't go through it worrying about every thing you put in your mouth. Every other thing? Ok - but life is short - live it.
 
When I started watching my diet closer , due to doctor's orders (My total was 125 with a family history), my total jumped about 200 within 6 months.

I am starting to be in the "we may not fully understand it yet" camp. Personally, I am going for a 2nd opinion.
 
There is a new test that measures the particle size since it is now believed that the size has a lot to do with things.
 
comanchepilot said:
We all die from something - some from blunders by the President, others from a simple heart attack but there is no one alive today who was alive when Sherman marched to the Sea - though many pretend they were.

Enjoy life - you can't go through it worrying about every thing you put in your mouth. Every other thing? Ok - but life is short - live it.
Click to expand...

You forgot about Wabado. ;)
 
bbchien said:
Also, the numbers derived from a drop of fingerstick blood is, well unlikely to withstand Standard Error scrutiny.....the SE of the mean is wider on the fingerstick methods, than of the full lab methods.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure any method is adequately accurate...

Or maybe it's just that cholesterol is in no way static.

I give blood every 8 weeks, religiously. When we lived in Springfield, MO, each time I gave blood, the local blood bank would post all the pertinent information from the donation on their website. This info included blood pressure, pulse, and the results of a complimentary lipid profile. A donor could view the info with a username/password.

My full history was there...every 8 weeks, for the 6 years we lived there. I would always fast and donate early in the day.

My total cholesterol bounced up and down dramatically. 40 to 50 point swings from one donation to the next weren't unusual. IIRC my lowest total cholesterol reading was 185, highest 260. It averaged about 215. I, too, always had very high HDL levels, almost always over 100 so I didn't worry about the totals much.

Conversely, my BP and pulse reading were quite consistent.

As a result of this experience, I don't have much confidence in individual cholesterol readings.

None actually.
 
Last edited:
OP here. Thanks for the feedback. I've had my doubts about the TC number in the past as I've watched female family and friends jump to high numbers as they age even though dietary habits and/or weight did not change. But it was a first for me.

I rarely go to the doctor except for flight medicals and annual girl doctor visits. I use these visits plus the various simple screenings provided at work and how I feel in general as my health indicators. I'm lucky as weight's never been a problem, and I've always been active. All my Aunties lived to their 90s-100s (Mom got nailed early with a car accident), so I think I've got some good genes. Who knows, maybe I'll schedule a physical again just for grins. :)
 
Garthur said:
My old doctor was very concerned about my cholesterol and he had me on medicine for it. He retired and then passed away and now I have a new doctor and the first thing he did was to take me off all drugs for cholesterol. I'v been seeing my new doctor for a year now and he still doesn't consider my cholesterol and issue. BTW my numbers are worse then yours.

The only thing my doctor will say is that there is some new research on cholesterol.
Click to expand...

My new doctor told me last week that there's increasing doubt that statins do anything other than improve the numbers in persons who don't already have coronary artery disease. In other words, she told me, in an otherwise healthy person, taking statins may make their lipid profile look better, but there's little evidence that they'll live any longer because of it.

The way she explained it was that there's an increasing consensus that the numbers are basically markers. Yes, there's a correlation between the numbers and a person's risk of heart attack, stroke, etc.; but maybe the numbers should be viewed more as a symptom, or an early warning, than a cause. In fact, she wonders if tweaking the numbers with statins may actually make patients complacent about nutrition, exercise, and other lifestyle changes that are, in fact, known to extend life.

-Rich
 
To the OP, sounds like you have good genes in your family. I wouldn't worry too much about cholesterol numbers. Also, from personal experience, I can say that some doctors are alarmists, and others simply want to put you on meds, either to protect their asses or to pad their pockets. I'm never sure which. I once had a doctor who, if I had listened to her, would have had me on statins, high-blood pressure and thyroid meds, even though it turned out I had none of these problems. She just wanted to react based on the initial lab numbers, without further evaluation. Fortunately, I trusted my gut instincts and pursued things further.

We all need to be our own best advocates when it comes to medical care. Just because someone has an M.D. after their name doesn't mean they know everything. The best doctor I ever had (sadly, she left for other parts), dismissed my TC of 242 as of no real concern, because my HDL was, as she put it, "off the charts." The bottom line was, the good cholesterol elevated the total cholesterol.

I have a feeling you're doing just fine. Ask more questions, and don't ever stop.
 
Okay, this is the OP. Under a lot of stress the last few months, so a couple of events occurred that finally made me go to the doc, only to find out that I'm almost the epitamy of health...for my age.

So, the "official" numbers from the doc have me at total 217, the only ding I got, but all other numbers are:
HDL = 159
LDL = 49
Trig = 45

This all makes a whole lot more sense!

I had to laugh, tho, as the "action required by me" is low-fat diet and exercise. Someone didn't read my chart about the exercise... :)
 
Hey OP . . . I know a guy. At 39 he was the oldest male in his family on his mothers side in three generations. His brother died at 35 from a heart attack. His father at 38. His grandfather at 38. His TOTAL Cholesterol was 114 on average. His HDL was twice as high as his LDL. His had a bypass at 39. He had another bypass at 51. He is now 56 and still kicking and is scheduled that he might need another bypass at 59 given what they are seeing. . . .

Exercise enough to keep your heart rate under 60. That shows a pretty decent cardiovascular condition - lift weights to help with BP. Eat what you want within reason. IMHO I would eat a Mediterranean diet, not a low-fat diet. . . I've much more success with that than anything low fat- low fat is too high in carbs.
 
Unregistered said:
Okay, this is the OP. Under a lot of stress the last few months, so a couple of events occurred that finally made me go to the doc, only to find out that I'm almost the epitamy of health...for my age.

So, the "official" numbers from the doc have me at total 217, the only ding I got, but all other numbers are:
HDL = 159
LDL = 49
Trig = 45

This all makes a whole lot more sense!

I had to laugh, tho, as the "action required by me" is low-fat diet and exercise. Someone didn't read my chart about the exercise... :)
Click to expand...

Glad to hear you are healthy! Healthy is good! :yes:
 
Unregistered said:
Okay, this is the OP. Under a lot of stress the last few months, so a couple of events occurred that finally made me go to the doc, only to find out that I'm almost the epitamy of health...for my age.

So, the "official" numbers from the doc have me at total 217, the only ding I got, but all other numbers are:
HDL = 159
LDL = 49
Trig = 45

This all makes a whole lot more sense!

I had to laugh, tho, as the "action required by me" is low-fat diet and exercise. Someone didn't read my chart about the exercise... :)
Click to expand...
Before you get too complacent, recent studies have shown it isn't the quantity of the HDL, but the eficiency of it that counts:
I didn't know HDL could even be as high as yours. Too bad you can't bottle the stuff and sell it!

dtuuri
 
Now I just have to get with the good Dr Bruce so I don't screw up my medical. A lot of tests were run due to my little stress complaint. But it is good to know with heading into the next decade of life, I've got one a heck of a strong ticker!
 
Unregistered said:
So, the "official" numbers from the doc have me at total 217, the only ding I got, but all other numbers are:
HDL = 159
LDL = 49
Trig = 45

This all makes a whole lot more sense!
Click to expand...
Not really. An HDL of three times LDL would be most extraordinary, if not bizarre. I suspect you have them flipped, as HDL 49 and LDL 159 with a total of 217 would make total sense. They'd probably like to see you get the LDL down below 100 (159 is borderline high, and lowering it would also fix your mildly high total cholesterol), and your HDL up just a little bit to around 60 or better, but your low triglyceride is a very good sign. See http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/guide/understanding-numbers for more on these numbers.

BTW, controlled carbohydrate intake is more important than a low-fat diet to control your lipids. It's also the best way to avoid Type 2 diabetes later in life. Talk to your doctor or endocrinologist for more on that.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
BTW, controlled carbohydrate intake is more important than a low-fat diet to control your lipids. It's also the best way to avoid Type 2 diabetes later in life. Talk to your doctor or endocrinologist for more on that.
Click to expand...
That depends on what you mean by "low fat". Every study I've seen (and I've read a bunch of 'em) that claims to compare with a low fat diet isn't comparing to a diet much lower in fat than a typical American diet. "Low fat" to me is 10% of the daily calories, not 30% or more like most studies. At 10% fat, your LDL will probably be cut nearly in half like mine was.

As to having the HDL and LDL 'flipped', I would think the triglycerides would be a lot higher in that case. Actually having a super high HDL, though, might keep them low, but I'm guessing. Maybe somebody else can explain the relationship between triglycerides and HDL if there is one.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
As to having the HDL and LDL 'flipped', I would think the triglycerides would be a lot higher in that case. Actually having a super high HDL, though, might keep them low, but I'm guessing.
Click to expand...
You may be, but I'm not. Lipids are a subject which has been near and dear to my heart (literally) for many years. NOBODY has an HDL of 159, and a triglyceride of 45 mg/dl is below the "normal" range of 50-150, and approaching the 35mg/dl level where some underlying pathology may exist. The posted numbers just don't make sense.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top