Why be concerned with cholesterol, etc.

[Songwriter]

I don't even know why this bugs me, haha. Just got blood work back. I figured ldl and especially, tri would be lower than this. (see previous results) My LDL isn't high, though. And I hope it's the fluffy kind.

1/28/08
176 - tot chol
48 - hdl
93 - ldl
173 - tri
95 - blood sugar

chol/hdl = 3.67
ldl/hdl = 1.94
tri/hdl = 3.60

Frankly, I'm surprised triglycerides are that high, although, they're not too high. Sticking to very low-carb very well. Only thing is I have not completely eliminated beer. I had six beers 4 1/2 days before the blood test. I wonder if it can have a 'residual' effect like that, days later.

Is a blood sugar of 95 okay? I'd rather it be lower, right?

12/10/06
128 - chol
44 - hdl
66 - ldl
88 - tri

chol/hdl = 2.91
ldl/hdl = 1.5
tri/hdl = 2.0

For the 12/10/06 above... I can't recall if I was still on Tricor cholesterol drug or not. I got off of it, don't know if I was on or off at that time.

Here are results from 1/25/06 when I had chest pain and had a stent put in.

TOT CHOL, 175
LDL, 80
HDL, 32
TRI, 308
TOT/HDL = 5.5
LDL/HDL = 2.5
TRI/HDL = 9.6

I told my doc I did not want to go cholesterol med as I thought I could take care of it with diet. I said I guarantee I can get Tri way down by cutting sugars and reducing beer. HDL... I didn't know if I could improve that but it sure looked bad. Best I had EVER had was 44. Running marathons. (Maybe running doesn't work so good?)

He disagreed and said go on the chol med (Tricor) and we'll talk about what you want in six months. I said okay. I went back for 90-day checkup. New numbers:

OLD, then NEW at 4/25/06:

TOT, 175 -- New: 135
LDL, 80 -- New: 68
HDL, 32 -- New: 51
TRI, 308 -- New: 79
TOT/HDL = 5.5 -- New: 2.6
LDL/HDL = 2.5 -- New: 1.3
TRI/HDL = 9.6 -- New: 1.5

After several months, I got off of Tricor totally. Only drug I take now is 20mg Lisinopril for blood pressure. And I want to get off of that, if possible. We'll see.

What do you think about the most recent test and also about fasting blood sugar of 95?

P.S. I'm still trying to drop a few pounds. Have been stalled for a few weeks but I'm slowly losing again.

[Lisa N]

I had six beers 4 1/2 days before the blood test. I wonder if it can have a 'residual' effect like that, days later.

Yes. Alcohol consumption is known to contribute to elevated triglyceride levels. If you want your tris lower, you'll need to cut back on the hooch.

[Songwriter]

Yes. Alcohol consumption is known to contribute to elevated triglyceride levels. If you want your tris lower, you'll need to cut back on the hooch.

Yes, I know that. My point was that I had zero beer for 4 1/2 days after I drank 6. About 4 out of 5 days, I don't drink at all.

[Nancy LC]

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com

He just posted about triglycerides there.
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/triglyceride-traps.html

How long have you been low carbing? I think at about the 3 month point you'll start seeing some big changes.

To bad you had the stent done. If I were you, I'd look into that "Track your Plaque" program, try the recommended supplements, nix the beer entirely (have a little wine -- notice the word "little"), and get a heart scan.

IMHO 95 is getting to be a bit highish for a fasting BG. No one would call it pre-diabetic but when I started getting those sorts of readings I took action. I got more serious about not cheating, I started doing Intermittent Fasting, and now I've pretty well weaned myself off the caffeine. My blood sugar has plummeted as a result! An article about life expectancy and FBG got me motivated.
http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2006/11/when-normal-isnt-optimal-for-health.html
http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2006/11/fatally-flawed-health-risk-paradigms.html

Last year a paper, Glycemic Control and Coronary Heart Disease Risk in persons with and without diabetes, was published in the Archives of Internal Medicine. The data from it is almost identical to the findings in 2004. The researchers concluded "In nondiabetic adults, HbA1c level was not related to CHD risk below a level of 4.6% but was significantly related to risk above that level (P = greater than 0.001). In diabetic adults, the risk of CHD increased throughout the range of HbA1c levels. In the adjusted model, the RR of CHD for a 1–percentage point increase in HbA1c level was 2.36 (95% CI, 1.43-3.90) in persons without diabetes but with an HbA1c level greater than 4.6%."

I know that 5% HbA1 is an average of 100. But this one article I read and now can't find it showed that the older you are, the lower your FBG is, the longer you will live.

Oh yes! I found it: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/uncategorized/the-sugar-hypothesis/

But, the most interesting aspect of this study is what the researchers found in the normal group first at 10 years then at 33 years down the road. Everyone knows that a markedly elevated blood sugar level or a diabetic glucose tolerance test bodes poorly for long term mortality, but what about the lower end of the curve? Is there a difference there? Is there a difference in long term mortality between a blood glucose level of, say, 95 mg/dl and one of 85 mg/dl, both of which are considered normal.

At the 10 year followup of the 18, 403 men the researchers found that heart disease mortality started to increase at blood sugar levels above 95 mg/dl, but that those subjects with blood sugar levels below 95 mg/dl showed no increased risk for death from heart disease.

After 33 years, however, the picture changes. The cutoff level drops to 83 mg/dl. In other words, in terms of cardiovascular mortality, the risk starts to rise as 2-hr post load blood sugars reach 83 mg/dl and that there is a linear increase in risk between 83 mg/dl and 95 mg/dl. I’m sure that after 40 years, the minimum level will drop a few points further.