Author |
Message |
Vicki J. Fowl #1 / 21
|
 cholesterol level
I am wondering at what point should one REALLY worry about her cholesterol level. I know that 200 is considered the maximum and anything below that is fine, but it seems more and more people are lowering their levels to below 150 and now anything above that seems dangerous. My other question is how much of a fluctuation is normal when my eating and exercise habits remain about the same? My first cholesterol check was done in May, 1989 and at that point it was 215. That scared me senseless, so I immediately began to eat more oat bran, less red meat, less cheese, etc. etc. I had it checked again in August, 1989 and it was down to 169. Since then I have maintained (or so I thought) the same kind of modified diet but when I had it checked in May of 1990 it was up to 183. Is this something to worry about and why would it go up when nothing else has changed? Thanks-----------vicki
|
Wed, 04 Nov 1992 04:35:59 GMT |
|
 |
Gordon E. Ban #2 / 21
|
 cholesterol level
While the incidence of atherosclerosis is not a step function of cholesterol level (at 200 or any other level), people with levels of 180 really have no reason for concern. The difference between 180 and 150 in terms of numbers of people having enough atherosclerosis to get into trouble is quite tiny. Unless your other risk factors are bad (smoker, bad heredity, high {*filter*} pressure, etc.) I wouldn't worry at all. Unfortunately, some people like to make it some kind of contest to see how low they can get their cholesterol. It may be fun, but it probably won't make a dime's worth of difference to their longevity. (Don't forget, the lowest cholesterol levels are found in people with liver disease. In them, it's not healthy!)
|
Fri, 06 Nov 1992 22:48:06 GMT |
|
 |
Alan Waterm #3 / 21
|
 cholesterol level
I am a 21 year old male. I don't smoke, drink, or do any other {*filter*}. My {*filter*} pressure is 130/76. My total cholest{*filter*}is 153. HDL is 43. Can anyone tell me what the range of proper ratios are? Do I have too much or even slightly too much HDL?
|
Sat, 07 Nov 1992 01:35:52 GMT |
|
 |
Frank #4 / 21
|
 cholesterol level
Quote: > ... > (Don't forget, the lowest cholesterol levels are found in people > with liver disease. In them, it's not healthy!)
Could somebody elaborate on the above statement? Why do people with liver disease have lower cholesterol level and that it is unhealthy? Thanks. Frank Ma
|
Sat, 07 Nov 1992 08:22:20 GMT |
|
 |
Craig Wern #5 / 21
|
 cholesterol level
Quote: > I am wondering at what point should one REALLY worry about her > cholesterol level. I know that 200 is considered the maximum and > My other question is how much of a fluctuation is normal when > my eating and exercise habits remain about the same?
180 is considered good. 200 is worth doing something about. However, I was quite chagrined to rediscover that the mean value for american males is about 215, which means that by and large, we got problems. As far as tests go. Since quick screens are given without internal standards to save time, the values can vary quite embarassingly. A bit too much {*filter*} in the capillary, it's high. If the fluid in the capillary includes lymph along with {*filter*}, it's low. Furthermore, since the enzyme assay is not exactly specific for cholesterol, your previous meal can affect your score about 5-10 points. In general, 5-10 points is no big deal, unless, it's the difference between 195 and 205. To really do it right, you have to use more accurate (and more expensive) methods than a simple fingerstick. -- Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 4.5 years down, 2.5 to go)
(1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "Illness strips away superficiality to reveal reality in etched detail."
|
Sat, 07 Nov 1992 15:26:32 GMT |
|
 |
#6 / 21
|
 cholesterol level
|
Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Steve Eli #7 / 21
|
 cholesterol level
is there some way that one can have the state of one's arteries examined? some sort of fiber optic in the vein peek technique? i'm still skeptical about all this hoopla about cholesterol. i have yet to see any scientific data which indicate that cholesterol *alone* causes heart disease. any references along these lines would be appreciated. i'm 28 and have a level of 294, with plenty of "bad" cholesterol and hence a "dangerous" ratio. i'm not overweight and have low {*filter*} pressure. does anyone know of any boston area researchers who need a case study? -- /eli
|
Sat, 07 Nov 1992 21:23:30 GMT |
|
 |
#8 / 21
|
 cholesterol level
|
Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Gordon E. Ban #9 / 21
|
 cholesterol level
Quote:
>> ... >> (Don't forget, the lowest cholesterol levels are found in people >> with liver disease. In them, it's not healthy!) >Could somebody elaborate on the above statement? Why do people with >liver disease have lower cholesterol level and that it is unhealthy?
Cholesterol is synthesized by the liver and when it is sick, it is unable to synthesize well and the serum levels drop. Thus, low cholesterol can be a manifestation of liver disease.
|
Sat, 07 Nov 1992 23:39:13 GMT |
|
 |
#10 / 21
|
 cholesterol level
|
Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Gordon E. Ban #11 / 21
|
 cholesterol level
Quote:
>is there some way that one can have the state of one's arteries examined? >some sort of fiber optic in the vein peek technique? >i'm still skeptical about all this hoopla about cholesterol. i have yet to >see any scientific data which indicate that cholesterol *alone* causes >heart disease. any references along these lines would be appreciated. >i'm 28 and have a level of 294, >with plenty of "bad" cholesterol and hence a "dangerous" ratio. >i'm not overweight and have low {*filter*} pressure. does anyone know >of any boston area researchers who need a case study?
I think there is little doubt that serum levels of 300 or so at your age are quite abnormal and carry definite increased risk. Has your cholesterol been fractionated? Have members of your family been studied? You may have a familial hyperlipidemia. I would check with the people at Peter Bent Brigham, where the cardiology department has people interested in lipids and atherosclerosis. They may or may not need you for a research study, but they would be up on the latest therapies, dietary or otherwise.
|
Sat, 07 Nov 1992 23:44:27 GMT |
|
 |
#12 / 21
|
 cholesterol level
|
Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Gregory G. Woodbu #13 / 21
|
 cholesterol level
Two notes on cholesterol levels: {*filter*} cholesterol levels can fluctuate a fair amount over a fairly short period. If you really want to worry about your chol. level, have it checked a few times over a period of time. If your level is CONSISTENTLY over 200, you should consult a physician for evaluation. Some interesting mathematical modeling of certain risk factors in coronary morbidity and mortality show some interesting effects with the chol. levels. In males, a level in the 170-180 range produces a minimum in mortality; in females, the minimum is in the range 180-210! (These are math models, I am not a doctor, etc. ad nauseum.) [Refs available if you really want them - the're mostly in ms.s currently in prep.] --
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...mcnc!wolves!ggw [use the maps!]
[The line eater is a boojum snark! ] <standard disclaimers apply>
|
Sun, 08 Nov 1992 08:41:55 GMT |
|
 |
Alan Waterm #14 / 21
|
 cholesterol level
Quote: > Some interesting mathematical modeling of certain risk factors >in coronary morbidity and mortality show some interesting effects with >the chol. levels. In males, a level in the 170-180 range produces a >minimum in mortality; in females, the minimum is in the range 180-210!
Does this mean that since my Cholest{*filter*}is 153, I'm at a higher risk for heart disease than if my cholest{*filter*}was 15 or so higher?
|
Sun, 08 Nov 1992 10:21:47 GMT |
|
 |
Gordon E. Ban #15 / 21
|
 cholesterol level
Quote:
>> Some interesting mathematical modeling of certain risk factors >>in coronary morbidity and mortality show some interesting effects with >>the chol. levels. In males, a level in the 170-180 range produces a >>minimum in mortality; in females, the minimum is in the range 180-210! >Does this mean that since my Cholest{*filter*}is 153, I'm at a higher risk >for heart disease than if my cholest{*filter*}was 15 or so higher?
Probably not, provided your cholesterol isn't low because you are sick. The statistics are gathered on large American populations and a significant proportion of people with very low cholesterols are sick patients with liver disease, AIDS, cancer or something else that is going to kill them soon. If you are healthy with a low cholesterol, that is probably good, although not enough research has been done to prove it. Asian populations where people have a diet that produces a naturally low cholesterol (in the range of 150) have less heart disease than those people on Western diets (although their mortality from other diseases may be greater).
|
Sun, 08 Nov 1992 21:16:55 GMT |
|
|