cholesterol level 
Author Message
 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
 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
 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
 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
 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
 cholesterol level


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 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
 cholesterol level


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 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
 cholesterol level


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 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
 cholesterol level


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 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
 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
 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
 
 [ 21 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. cholesterol levels : Present News. healthy cholesterol levels,normal cholesterol levels,low cholesterol levels,eggs and cholesterol levels,what your cholesterol levels mean

2. Low Cholesterol Levels ( was curing disease )

3. Cholesterol levels

4. LDL Cholesterol Levels

5. The dangers of a low cholesterol level

6. Cholesterol level

7. cholesterol levels

8. ? conversion of USA cholesterol level to european? (fwd)

9. Sugar and cholesterol level

10. SMOKING AND ELEVATED CHOLESTEROL LEVELS

11. New therapy successfully improves cholesterol levels


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software