PDA

View Full Version : Cholesterol question


Larry Hodges
September 15th 04, 07:24 PM
About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:

Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)

Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.

Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF is much
lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I be concerned?
--
-Larry

Dally
September 15th 04, 07:37 PM
Larry Hodges wrote:

> About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
>
> Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
> HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
> LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
> HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
>
> Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.
>
> Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF is much
> lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I be concerned?

My guess is that the LDL to HDL ratio is more important than the total
cholesterol. Your ratio shows low risk, being below 3.0

If you've got heart disease you'd want to be more aggressive in bringing
down your cholesterol, but if you don't have any other symptoms then I'd
say you're good to go.

Of course, I know absolutely nothing about this beyond a book I once
read. So ignore everything I just said.

Dally

David Cohen
September 15th 04, 08:08 PM
"Dally" > wrote

> Larry Hodges wrote:
>
> > About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
> >
> > Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
> > HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
> > LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
> > HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
> >
> > Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.
> >
> > Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF is much
> > lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I be concerned?
>
> My guess is that the LDL to HDL ratio is more important than the total
> cholesterol. Your ratio shows low risk, being below 3.0
>
> If you've got heart disease you'd want to be more aggressive in bringing
> down your cholesterol, but if you don't have any other symptoms then I'd
> say you're good to go.
>
> Of course, I know absolutely nothing about this beyond a book I once
> read. So ignore everything I just said.

I agree. Larry should ignore everything you just said. Seriously crappy
advice.

Larry, no one indicator is key. You have to consider the overall results.

While total cholesterol is not one of the most important indicators, if it
is seriously bad, you should not ignore it. 244 is too high, especially when
considering that your HDL is mediocre. Your LDL is way too high. Your
total/HDL of 4.1 is not "low risk". Where'd you get that from?

My advice would be to get a more complete cardiac risk profile, including
VLDL, homocysteine, fibrinogen, iron, and triglycerides. Browse around
www.lef.org in the protocols to decide which tests you need...LEF can do
them for you, if you can't get a doctor or local lab to do them...and read
the protocols for reducing the bad numbers and increasing the good numbers
(forgive me those technical medical terms:)

And ignore anything Dally writes. Even LEF will tell you that.

David

spodosaurus
September 15th 04, 08:49 PM
Larry Hodges wrote:
> About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
>
> Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
> HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
> LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
> HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
>
> Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.
>
> Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF is much
> lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I be concerned?

Do I really need to tell you to ask your doctor, who knows (or should)
any other risk factors that you have?

--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

Will Brink
September 15th 04, 10:39 PM
In article >,
"David Cohen" > wrote:

> "Dally" > wrote
>
> > Larry Hodges wrote:
> >
> > > About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
> > >
> > > Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
> > > HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
> > > LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
> > > HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
> > >
> > > Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.
> > >
> > > Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF is much
> > > lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I be concerned?
> >
> > My guess is that the LDL to HDL ratio is more important than the total
> > cholesterol. Your ratio shows low risk, being below 3.0
> >
> > If you've got heart disease you'd want to be more aggressive in bringing
> > down your cholesterol, but if you don't have any other symptoms then I'd
> > say you're good to go.
> >
> > Of course, I know absolutely nothing about this beyond a book I once
> > read. So ignore everything I just said.
>
> I agree. Larry should ignore everything you just said. Seriously crappy
> advice.
>
> Larry, no one indicator is key. You have to consider the overall results.
>
> While total cholesterol is not one of the most important indicators, if it
> is seriously bad, you should not ignore it. 244 is too high, especially when
> considering that your HDL is mediocre. Your LDL is way too high. Your
> total/HDL of 4.1 is not "low risk". Where'd you get that from?
>
> My advice would be to get a more complete cardiac risk profile, including
> VLDL, homocysteine, fibrinogen, iron, and triglycerides. Browse around
> www.lef.org in the protocols to decide which tests you need...LEF can do
> them for you, if you can't get a doctor or local lab to do them...and read
> the protocols for reducing the bad numbers and increasing the good numbers
> (forgive me those technical medical terms:)

I had my blood work done via the LEF and cover some of the tests and
their results here:

http://www.brinkzone.com/itsinyourblood.html


>
> And ignore anything Dally writes. Even LEF will tell you that.
>
> David
>
>
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Knowerofallthing
September 15th 04, 10:42 PM
Are you sure you're not dead?

TKOAT

Dally
September 16th 04, 12:28 AM
David Cohen wrote:

> "Dally" > wrote

>>Of course, I know absolutely nothing about this beyond a book I once
>>read. So ignore everything I just said.
>
>
> I agree. Larry should ignore everything you just said. Seriously crappy
> advice.

Heh. Would you have chimed in with your GOOD advice if you hadn't had
to correct me?

Dally, performing public services in unusual ways on a daily basis

Larry Hodges
September 16th 04, 12:32 AM
Will Brink wrote:
> In article >,
> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>
>> "Dally" > wrote
>>
>>> Larry Hodges wrote:
>>>
>>>> About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
>>>>
>>>> Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
>>>> HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
>>>> LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
>>>> HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
>>>>
>>>> Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.
>>>>
>>>> Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF is
>>>> much lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I be
>>>> concerned?
>>>
>>> My guess is that the LDL to HDL ratio is more important than the
>>> total cholesterol. Your ratio shows low risk, being below 3.0
>>>
>>> If you've got heart disease you'd want to be more aggressive in
>>> bringing down your cholesterol, but if you don't have any other
>>> symptoms then I'd say you're good to go.
>>>
>>> Of course, I know absolutely nothing about this beyond a book I once
>>> read. So ignore everything I just said.
>>
>> I agree. Larry should ignore everything you just said. Seriously
>> crappy advice.
>>
>> Larry, no one indicator is key. You have to consider the overall
>> results.
>>
>> While total cholesterol is not one of the most important indicators,
>> if it is seriously bad, you should not ignore it. 244 is too high,
>> especially when considering that your HDL is mediocre. Your LDL is
>> way too high. Your total/HDL of 4.1 is not "low risk". Where'd you
>> get that from?
>>
>> My advice would be to get a more complete cardiac risk profile,
>> including VLDL, homocysteine, fibrinogen, iron, and triglycerides.
>> Browse around www.lef.org in the protocols to decide which tests you
>> need...LEF can do them for you, if you can't get a doctor or local
>> lab to do them...and read the protocols for reducing the bad numbers
>> and increasing the good numbers (forgive me those technical medical
>> terms:)
>
> I had my blood work done via the LEF and cover some of the tests and
> their results here:
>
> http://www.brinkzone.com/itsinyourblood.html
>
>
>>
>> And ignore anything Dally writes. Even LEF will tell you that.
>>
>> David

Well, your Total Colesterol was 266, and LDL was 167...both higher than
mine. Did you do anything to bring it down?
--
-Larry

David Cohen
September 16th 04, 12:41 AM
"Dally" > wrote
> David Cohen wrote:
> > "Dally" > wrote
> >>Of course, I know absolutely nothing about this beyond a book I once
> >>read. So ignore everything I just said.
> >
> > I agree. Larry should ignore everything you just said. Seriously crappy
> > advice.
>
> Heh. Would you have chimed in with your GOOD advice if you hadn't had
> to correct me?

Yes. I like Larry. I want him to live long and vote in many elections.

> Dally, performing public services in unusual ways on a daily basis

I knew there had to be a reason.

David

Dally
September 16th 04, 01:31 AM
David Cohen wrote:

> "Dally" > wrote
>
>>David Cohen wrote:
>>
>>>"Dally" > wrote
>>>
>>>>Of course, I know absolutely nothing about this beyond a book I once
>>>>read. So ignore everything I just said.
>>>
>>>I agree. Larry should ignore everything you just said. Seriously crappy
>>>advice.
>>
>>Heh. Would you have chimed in with your GOOD advice if you hadn't had
>>to correct me?
>
> Yes. I like Larry. I want him to live long and vote in many elections.
>
>
>>Dally, performing public services in unusual ways on a daily basis
>
>
> I knew there had to be a reason.
>
> David

Yeah, well, it's the same reason I volunteer to come in last in races.
I like to be helpful in my own particular way.

Hey, if you're incompetant, USE it!

Dally

Will Brink
September 16th 04, 02:09 PM
In article >,
"Larry Hodges" > wrote:

> Will Brink wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "David Cohen" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Dally" > wrote
> >>
> >>> Larry Hodges wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
> >>>>
> >>>> Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
> >>>> HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
> >>>> LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
> >>>> HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
> >>>>
> >>>> Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF is
> >>>> much lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I be
> >>>> concerned?
> >>>
> >>> My guess is that the LDL to HDL ratio is more important than the
> >>> total cholesterol. Your ratio shows low risk, being below 3.0
> >>>
> >>> If you've got heart disease you'd want to be more aggressive in
> >>> bringing down your cholesterol, but if you don't have any other
> >>> symptoms then I'd say you're good to go.
> >>>
> >>> Of course, I know absolutely nothing about this beyond a book I once
> >>> read. So ignore everything I just said.
> >>
> >> I agree. Larry should ignore everything you just said. Seriously
> >> crappy advice.
> >>
> >> Larry, no one indicator is key. You have to consider the overall
> >> results.
> >>
> >> While total cholesterol is not one of the most important indicators,
> >> if it is seriously bad, you should not ignore it. 244 is too high,
> >> especially when considering that your HDL is mediocre. Your LDL is
> >> way too high. Your total/HDL of 4.1 is not "low risk". Where'd you
> >> get that from?
> >>
> >> My advice would be to get a more complete cardiac risk profile,
> >> including VLDL, homocysteine, fibrinogen, iron, and triglycerides.
> >> Browse around www.lef.org in the protocols to decide which tests you
> >> need...LEF can do them for you, if you can't get a doctor or local
> >> lab to do them...and read the protocols for reducing the bad numbers
> >> and increasing the good numbers (forgive me those technical medical
> >> terms:)
> >
> > I had my blood work done via the LEF and cover some of the tests and
> > their results here:
> >
> > http://www.brinkzone.com/itsinyourblood.html
> >
> >
> >>
> >> And ignore anything Dally writes. Even LEF will tell you that.
> >>
> >> David
>
> Well, your Total Colesterol was 266, and LDL was 167...both higher than
> mine. Did you do anything to bring it down?

Err, did you not read my comments in the article about that?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Larry Hodges
September 16th 04, 11:49 PM
Will Brink wrote:
> In article >,
> "Larry Hodges" > wrote:
>
>> Will Brink wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Dally" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Larry Hodges wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
>>>>>> HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
>>>>>> LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
>>>>>> HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF
>>>>>> is much lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I
>>>>>> be concerned?
>>>>>
>>>>> My guess is that the LDL to HDL ratio is more important than the
>>>>> total cholesterol. Your ratio shows low risk, being below 3.0
>>>>>
>>>>> If you've got heart disease you'd want to be more aggressive in
>>>>> bringing down your cholesterol, but if you don't have any other
>>>>> symptoms then I'd say you're good to go.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, I know absolutely nothing about this beyond a book I
>>>>> once read. So ignore everything I just said.
>>>>
>>>> I agree. Larry should ignore everything you just said. Seriously
>>>> crappy advice.
>>>>
>>>> Larry, no one indicator is key. You have to consider the overall
>>>> results.
>>>>
>>>> While total cholesterol is not one of the most important
>>>> indicators, if it is seriously bad, you should not ignore it. 244
>>>> is too high, especially when considering that your HDL is
>>>> mediocre. Your LDL is way too high. Your total/HDL of 4.1 is not
>>>> "low risk". Where'd you get that from?
>>>>
>>>> My advice would be to get a more complete cardiac risk profile,
>>>> including VLDL, homocysteine, fibrinogen, iron, and triglycerides.
>>>> Browse around www.lef.org in the protocols to decide which tests
>>>> you need...LEF can do them for you, if you can't get a doctor or
>>>> local lab to do them...and read the protocols for reducing the bad
>>>> numbers and increasing the good numbers (forgive me those
>>>> technical medical terms:)
>>>
>>> I had my blood work done via the LEF and cover some of the tests and
>>> their results here:
>>>
>>> http://www.brinkzone.com/itsinyourblood.html
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And ignore anything Dally writes. Even LEF will tell you that.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>
>> Well, your Total Colesterol was 266, and LDL was 167...both higher
>> than mine. Did you do anything to bring it down?
>
> Err, did you not read my comments in the article about that?

I did. But 220 is a long way from 266.
--
-Larry

Larry Hodges
September 17th 04, 12:17 AM
David Cohen wrote:
> "Dally" > wrote
>
>> Larry Hodges wrote:
>>
>>> About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
>>>
>>> Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
>>> HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
>>> LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
>>> HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
>>>
>>> Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.
>>>
>>> Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF is
>>> much lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I be
>>> concerned?
>>
>> My guess is that the LDL to HDL ratio is more important than the
>> total cholesterol. Your ratio shows low risk, being below 3.0
>>
>> If you've got heart disease you'd want to be more aggressive in
>> bringing down your cholesterol, but if you don't have any other
>> symptoms then I'd say you're good to go.
>>
>> Of course, I know absolutely nothing about this beyond a book I once
>> read. So ignore everything I just said.
>
> I agree. Larry should ignore everything you just said. Seriously
> crappy advice.
>
> Larry, no one indicator is key. You have to consider the overall
> results.
>
> While total cholesterol is not one of the most important indicators,
> if it is seriously bad, you should not ignore it. 244 is too high,
> especially when considering that your HDL is mediocre. Your LDL is
> way too high. Your total/HDL of 4.1 is not "low risk". Where'd you
> get that from?
>
> My advice would be to get a more complete cardiac risk profile,
> including VLDL, homocysteine, fibrinogen, iron, and triglycerides.
> Browse around www.lef.org in the protocols to decide which tests you
> need...LEF can do them for you, if you can't get a doctor or local
> lab to do them...and read the protocols for reducing the bad numbers
> and increasing the good numbers (forgive me those technical medical
> terms:)
>
> And ignore anything Dally writes. Even LEF will tell you that.
>
> David

Thanks for the advice David. I will get some blood work done and request
your above recommendations. If there are other suggestions, please let me
know.

And it's nice you want me around so I can vote. Nader needs all the votes
he can get.
--
-Larry

David Cohen
September 17th 04, 12:30 AM
"Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
...
> David Cohen wrote:
> > "Dally" > wrote
> >
> >> Larry Hodges wrote:
> >>
> >>> About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
> >>>
> >>> Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
> >>> HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
> >>> LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
> >>> HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
> >>>
> >>> Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.
> >>>
> >>> Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF is
> >>> much lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I be
> >>> concerned?
> >>
> >> My guess is that the LDL to HDL ratio is more important than the
> >> total cholesterol. Your ratio shows low risk, being below 3.0
> >>
> >> If you've got heart disease you'd want to be more aggressive in
> >> bringing down your cholesterol, but if you don't have any other
> >> symptoms then I'd say you're good to go.
> >>
> >> Of course, I know absolutely nothing about this beyond a book I once
> >> read. So ignore everything I just said.
> >
> > I agree. Larry should ignore everything you just said. Seriously
> > crappy advice.
> >
> > Larry, no one indicator is key. You have to consider the overall
> > results.
> >
> > While total cholesterol is not one of the most important indicators,
> > if it is seriously bad, you should not ignore it. 244 is too high,
> > especially when considering that your HDL is mediocre. Your LDL is
> > way too high. Your total/HDL of 4.1 is not "low risk". Where'd you
> > get that from?
> >
> > My advice would be to get a more complete cardiac risk profile,
> > including VLDL, homocysteine, fibrinogen, iron, and triglycerides.
> > Browse around www.lef.org in the protocols to decide which tests you
> > need...LEF can do them for you, if you can't get a doctor or local
> > lab to do them...and read the protocols for reducing the bad numbers
> > and increasing the good numbers (forgive me those technical medical
> > terms:)
> >
> > And ignore anything Dally writes. Even LEF will tell you that.
> >
> > David
>
> Thanks for the advice David. I will get some blood work done and request
> your above recommendations. If there are other suggestions, please let me
> know.
>
> And it's nice you want me around so I can vote. Nader needs all the votes
> he can get.

YES!! Nader roolz! If he didn't exist, the Republicans would have to invent
him.

David

Larry Hodges
September 17th 04, 12:59 AM
David Cohen wrote:
> "Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
> ...
>> David Cohen wrote:
>>> "Dally" > wrote
>>>
>>>> Larry Hodges wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
>>>>>
>>>>> Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
>>>>> HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
>>>>> LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
>>>>> HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF is
>>>>> much lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I be
>>>>> concerned?
>>>>
>>>> My guess is that the LDL to HDL ratio is more important than the
>>>> total cholesterol. Your ratio shows low risk, being below 3.0
>>>>
>>>> If you've got heart disease you'd want to be more aggressive in
>>>> bringing down your cholesterol, but if you don't have any other
>>>> symptoms then I'd say you're good to go.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I know absolutely nothing about this beyond a book I
>>>> once read. So ignore everything I just said.
>>>
>>> I agree. Larry should ignore everything you just said. Seriously
>>> crappy advice.
>>>
>>> Larry, no one indicator is key. You have to consider the overall
>>> results.
>>>
>>> While total cholesterol is not one of the most important indicators,
>>> if it is seriously bad, you should not ignore it. 244 is too high,
>>> especially when considering that your HDL is mediocre. Your LDL is
>>> way too high. Your total/HDL of 4.1 is not "low risk". Where'd you
>>> get that from?
>>>
>>> My advice would be to get a more complete cardiac risk profile,
>>> including VLDL, homocysteine, fibrinogen, iron, and triglycerides.
>>> Browse around www.lef.org in the protocols to decide which tests you
>>> need...LEF can do them for you, if you can't get a doctor or local
>>> lab to do them...and read the protocols for reducing the bad numbers
>>> and increasing the good numbers (forgive me those technical medical
>>> terms:)
>>>
>>> And ignore anything Dally writes. Even LEF will tell you that.
>>>
>>> David
>>
>> Thanks for the advice David. I will get some blood work done and
>> request your above recommendations. If there are other suggestions,
>> please let me know.
>>
>> And it's nice you want me around so I can vote. Nader needs all the
>> votes he can get.
>
> YES!! Nader roolz! If he didn't exist, the Republicans would have to
> invent him.
>
> David

It's great he pulls votes from the Demoncrats. What's sad is that people
vote for him because they actually like him. Anymore, the Demoncrats aren't
much different than the Green Party anyway. Both Socialists with different
labels.
--
-Larry

John Hanson
September 17th 04, 02:54 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:59:00 -0700, "Larry Hodges"
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>David Cohen wrote:
>> "Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> David Cohen wrote:
>>>> "Dally" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Larry Hodges wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
>>>>>> HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
>>>>>> LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
>>>>>> HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF is
>>>>>> much lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I be
>>>>>> concerned?
>>>>>
>>>>> My guess is that the LDL to HDL ratio is more important than the
>>>>> total cholesterol. Your ratio shows low risk, being below 3.0
>>>>>
>>>>> If you've got heart disease you'd want to be more aggressive in
>>>>> bringing down your cholesterol, but if you don't have any other
>>>>> symptoms then I'd say you're good to go.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, I know absolutely nothing about this beyond a book I
>>>>> once read. So ignore everything I just said.
>>>>
>>>> I agree. Larry should ignore everything you just said. Seriously
>>>> crappy advice.
>>>>
>>>> Larry, no one indicator is key. You have to consider the overall
>>>> results.
>>>>
>>>> While total cholesterol is not one of the most important indicators,
>>>> if it is seriously bad, you should not ignore it. 244 is too high,
>>>> especially when considering that your HDL is mediocre. Your LDL is
>>>> way too high. Your total/HDL of 4.1 is not "low risk". Where'd you
>>>> get that from?
>>>>
>>>> My advice would be to get a more complete cardiac risk profile,
>>>> including VLDL, homocysteine, fibrinogen, iron, and triglycerides.
>>>> Browse around www.lef.org in the protocols to decide which tests you
>>>> need...LEF can do them for you, if you can't get a doctor or local
>>>> lab to do them...and read the protocols for reducing the bad numbers
>>>> and increasing the good numbers (forgive me those technical medical
>>>> terms:)
>>>>
>>>> And ignore anything Dally writes. Even LEF will tell you that.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>
>>> Thanks for the advice David. I will get some blood work done and
>>> request your above recommendations. If there are other suggestions,
>>> please let me know.
>>>
>>> And it's nice you want me around so I can vote. Nader needs all the
>>> votes he can get.
>>
>> YES!! Nader roolz! If he didn't exist, the Republicans would have to
>> invent him.
>>
>> David
>
>It's great he pulls votes from the Demoncrats. What's sad is that people
>vote for him because they actually like him. Anymore, the Demoncrats aren't
>much different than the Green Party anyway. Both Socialists with different
>labels.

Hear, Hear. Nader just got on the ballot in Minnesota. He did very
well here in 2000.

John M. Williams
September 17th 04, 03:21 AM
John Hanson > wrote:
> "Larry Hodges" > wrote:
>>David Cohen wrote:
>>> "Larry Hodges" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And it's nice you want me around so I can vote. Nader needs all the
>>>> votes he can get.
>>>
>>> YES!! Nader roolz! If he didn't exist, the Republicans would have to
>>> invent him.
>>
>>It's great he pulls votes from the Demoncrats. What's sad is that people
>>vote for him because they actually like him. Anymore, the Demoncrats aren't
>>much different than the Green Party anyway. Both Socialists with different
>>labels.
>
>Hear, Hear. Nader just got on the ballot in Minnesota. He did very
>well here in 2000.

He has nearly three times the amount that he needs in Ohio, which is
driving Democrats insane. It's amazing how they complain about felons
being taken off the voting rolls in Florida but are perfectly willing
hire lawyers to challenge an Ohio voting registration when it
threatens them:

http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/109411765193400.xml

John Hanson
September 17th 04, 03:36 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:21:11 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>John Hanson > wrote:
>> "Larry Hodges" > wrote:
>>>David Cohen wrote:
>>>> "Larry Hodges" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And it's nice you want me around so I can vote. Nader needs all the
>>>>> votes he can get.
>>>>
>>>> YES!! Nader roolz! If he didn't exist, the Republicans would have to
>>>> invent him.
>>>
>>>It's great he pulls votes from the Demoncrats. What's sad is that people
>>>vote for him because they actually like him. Anymore, the Demoncrats aren't
>>>much different than the Green Party anyway. Both Socialists with different
>>>labels.
>>
>>Hear, Hear. Nader just got on the ballot in Minnesota. He did very
>>well here in 2000.
>
>He has nearly three times the amount that he needs in Ohio, which is
>driving Democrats insane. It's amazing how they complain about felons
>being taken off the voting rolls in Florida but are perfectly willing
>hire lawyers to challenge an Ohio voting registration when it
>threatens them:
>
>http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/109411765193400.xml

"If all of the Lawses' petitions were thrown out, Nader might still
have almost 13,000 signatures in Ohio, more than twice the number he
needs to get on the ballot. But Democrats also are challenging seven
other petition circulators - enough, they believe, to block Nader's
candidacy. "

That is funny!

Chuck Drake
September 17th 04, 02:20 PM
My doctor would be having a cow!! Go see your doctor.
In the interim I suggest eating oatmeal, it will lower your ldl some. It (
the soluble fiber in oatmeal) bind with bile in the intestines ( bile being
what the body turns into ldl) thus lowering your ldl. Also watch your fat
intake.
Only reason I say this is because my risk was below 4% and I still ended up
having a bypass at 38. Turns out my ldl was 160.

"Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
...
> About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
>
> Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
> HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
> LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
> HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
>
> Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.
>
> Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF is much
> lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I be concerned?
> --
> -Larry
>
>

Will Brink
September 17th 04, 02:39 PM
In article >,
"Larry Hodges" > wrote:

> Will Brink wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Larry Hodges" > wrote:
> >
> >> Will Brink wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "David Cohen" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Dally" > wrote
> >>>>
> >>>>> Larry Hodges wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
> >>>>>> HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
> >>>>>> LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
> >>>>>> HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF
> >>>>>> is much lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I
> >>>>>> be concerned?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My guess is that the LDL to HDL ratio is more important than the
> >>>>> total cholesterol. Your ratio shows low risk, being below 3.0
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you've got heart disease you'd want to be more aggressive in
> >>>>> bringing down your cholesterol, but if you don't have any other
> >>>>> symptoms then I'd say you're good to go.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course, I know absolutely nothing about this beyond a book I
> >>>>> once read. So ignore everything I just said.
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree. Larry should ignore everything you just said. Seriously
> >>>> crappy advice.
> >>>>
> >>>> Larry, no one indicator is key. You have to consider the overall
> >>>> results.
> >>>>
> >>>> While total cholesterol is not one of the most important
> >>>> indicators, if it is seriously bad, you should not ignore it. 244
> >>>> is too high, especially when considering that your HDL is
> >>>> mediocre. Your LDL is way too high. Your total/HDL of 4.1 is not
> >>>> "low risk". Where'd you get that from?
> >>>>
> >>>> My advice would be to get a more complete cardiac risk profile,
> >>>> including VLDL, homocysteine, fibrinogen, iron, and triglycerides.
> >>>> Browse around www.lef.org in the protocols to decide which tests
> >>>> you need...LEF can do them for you, if you can't get a doctor or
> >>>> local lab to do them...and read the protocols for reducing the bad
> >>>> numbers and increasing the good numbers (forgive me those
> >>>> technical medical terms:)
> >>>
> >>> I had my blood work done via the LEF and cover some of the tests and
> >>> their results here:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.brinkzone.com/itsinyourblood.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> And ignore anything Dally writes. Even LEF will tell you that.
> >>>>
> >>>> David
> >>
> >> Well, your Total Colesterol was 266, and LDL was 167...both higher
> >> than mine. Did you do anything to bring it down?
> >
> > Err, did you not read my comments in the article about that?
>
> I did. But 220 is a long way from 266.

I don't follow you.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

rick++
September 17th 04, 03:45 PM
"Larry Hodges" > wrote in message >...
> About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
>
> Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
> HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
> LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
> HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)

These days "good" is now considered:

HDL > 60
LDL < 70
ratio < 2.0
Total < 150

They changed these numbers considerably in the past three years,
but I think Pfizer (Lipitor) bought out the FDA. Same people
want to lower the definition of fatness to BMI < 23 and diabetes
to sugar > 90.

Clinton's total was 233 and LDL 177 the year before his surgery.
His numbers had been better when he was a jogger. Some are blaming
the South Beach Diet for his numbers.

1/3 or heart attack victims have decent cholesterol levels,
so other factors are involved.

Dally
September 17th 04, 03:50 PM
rick++ wrote:

> "Larry Hodges" > wrote in message >...
>
>>About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
>>
>>Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
>>HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
>>LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
>>HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
>
>
> These days "good" is now considered:
>
> HDL > 60
> LDL < 70
> ratio < 2.0
> Total < 150

I thought that's what they were aiming at to achieve with medication
when you already had heart disease. I've never heard anyone attempting
to bring LDL down to 70 when there were no other risk factors. Have you?

Dally

Larry Hodges
September 17th 04, 04:53 PM
John Hanson wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:21:11 -0400, John M. Williams
> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>> John Hanson > wrote:
>>> "Larry Hodges" > wrote:
>>>> David Cohen wrote:
>>>>> "Larry Hodges" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it's nice you want me around so I can vote. Nader needs all
>>>>>> the votes he can get.
>>>>>
>>>>> YES!! Nader roolz! If he didn't exist, the Republicans would have
>>>>> to invent him.
>>>>
>>>> It's great he pulls votes from the Demoncrats. What's sad is that
>>>> people vote for him because they actually like him. Anymore, the
>>>> Demoncrats aren't much different than the Green Party anyway.
>>>> Both Socialists with different labels.
>>>
>>> Hear, Hear. Nader just got on the ballot in Minnesota. He did very
>>> well here in 2000.
>>
>> He has nearly three times the amount that he needs in Ohio, which is
>> driving Democrats insane. It's amazing how they complain about
>> felons being taken off the voting rolls in Florida but are perfectly
>> willing hire lawyers to challenge an Ohio voting registration when it
>> threatens them:
>>
>>
http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/109411765193400.xml
>
> "If all of the Lawses' petitions were thrown out, Nader might still
> have almost 13,000 signatures in Ohio, more than twice the number he
> needs to get on the ballot. But Democrats also are challenging seven
> other petition circulators - enough, they believe, to block Nader's
> candidacy. "
>
> That is funny!

The clueless do battle with the extremely clueless. LOL
--
-Larry

Snuggles
September 17th 04, 05:11 PM
In article >,
Ignoramus474 > wrote:

> If you are concerned with your cholesterol, you may be interested in
> this article:
>
> http://www.redflagsweekly.com/kendrick/2004_sept16.html

If the number are for total cholesterol then they are meaningless. It's
your LDL, Lp(a) and triglyceride levels that you need to be concerned
with.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snuggles, not Shuggie
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Snuggles
September 17th 04, 05:14 PM
In article >, Dally >
wrote:

> rick++ wrote:
>
> > "Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >
> >>About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
> >>
> >>Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
> >>HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
> >>LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
> >>HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
> >
> >
> > These days "good" is now considered:
> >
> > HDL > 60
> > LDL < 70
> > ratio < 2.0
> > Total < 150
>
> I thought that's what they were aiming at to achieve with medication
> when you already had heart disease. I've never heard anyone attempting
> to bring LDL down to 70 when there were no other risk factors. Have you?

I'm attempting to get mine below 100 and I don't have a history of heart
disease, which is why I'm shooting for 100.... I don't ever want to ever
have a history of it. If I can make it to 100 without drugs then I'll
shoot for 70 for my LDL.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snuggles, not Shuggie
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Larry Hodges
September 17th 04, 05:55 PM
Will Brink wrote:
> In article >,
> "Larry Hodges" > wrote:
>
>> Will Brink wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> "Larry Hodges" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Will Brink wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dally" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Larry Hodges wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my
>>>>>>>> results:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
>>>>>>>> HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
>>>>>>>> LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
>>>>>>>> HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF
>>>>>>>> is much lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I
>>>>>>>> be concerned?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My guess is that the LDL to HDL ratio is more important than the
>>>>>>> total cholesterol. Your ratio shows low risk, being below 3.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you've got heart disease you'd want to be more aggressive in
>>>>>>> bringing down your cholesterol, but if you don't have any other
>>>>>>> symptoms then I'd say you're good to go.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, I know absolutely nothing about this beyond a book I
>>>>>>> once read. So ignore everything I just said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree. Larry should ignore everything you just said. Seriously
>>>>>> crappy advice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry, no one indicator is key. You have to consider the overall
>>>>>> results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While total cholesterol is not one of the most important
>>>>>> indicators, if it is seriously bad, you should not ignore it. 244
>>>>>> is too high, especially when considering that your HDL is
>>>>>> mediocre. Your LDL is way too high. Your total/HDL of 4.1 is not
>>>>>> "low risk". Where'd you get that from?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My advice would be to get a more complete cardiac risk profile,
>>>>>> including VLDL, homocysteine, fibrinogen, iron, and
>>>>>> triglycerides. Browse around www.lef.org in the protocols to
>>>>>> decide which tests you need...LEF can do them for you, if you
>>>>>> can't get a doctor or local lab to do them...and read the
>>>>>> protocols for reducing the bad numbers and increasing the good
>>>>>> numbers (forgive me those technical medical terms:)
>>>>>
>>>>> I had my blood work done via the LEF and cover some of the tests
>>>>> and their results here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.brinkzone.com/itsinyourblood.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And ignore anything Dally writes. Even LEF will tell you that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> Well, your Total Colesterol was 266, and LDL was 167...both higher
>>>> than mine. Did you do anything to bring it down?
>>>
>>> Err, did you not read my comments in the article about that?
>>
>> I did. But 220 is a long way from 266.
>
> I don't follow you.

You make mention in your comments that you are regularly around 220 for
total colesterol. However, in your test results, total colesterol is 262
(sorry...I said 266 before). 262 is higher that I was. So my question is
did you do anything to bring it down from 262?
--
-Larry

Will Brink
September 17th 04, 07:51 PM
In article >,
"Larry Hodges" > wrote:


>
> You make mention in your comments that you are regularly around 220 for
> total colesterol. However, in your test results, total colesterol is 262
> (sorry...I said 266 before). 262 is higher that I was. So my question is
> did you do anything to bring it down from 262?

Then you clearly skimmed or didn't actually read the article fully which
addresses exactly that. So, now i have to go find it and cut and paste
it here, though it is out of context of the article:

"As I stated above, reading a blood test is one thing, interpreting the
results is another. For example, the reader will note my total
cholesterol (and triglycerides) were above what is considered normal,
presenting a possible increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).
However, I had not fasted for the test, which always leads to higher
numbers in blood lipids (which is why they tell you to fast prior to
blood work)."

and

"Regardless, my total cholesterol tends to run about 220 anyway, which
is 20 points above what is recommend. Does that worry me? Not at all.
Total cholesterol levels are poorly correlated to CVD, I have an
exceptionally high HDL level (giving me a favorable total
cholesterol/HDL ratio), very low homocysteine levels, low C-reactive
protein levels, high normal DHEA levels, and no family history of CVD.
Thus my real CVD risk is quite low. Speaking of DHEA, the reason I have
such favorable DHEA levels is I take 25mg per day of DHEA. Prior tests
showed I was actually low "normal" in DHEA for my age group, so I
adjusted it upward via a DHEA supplement. How would I have ever known I
was low in DHEA without a blood test? I wouldn't!"

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

DZ
September 18th 04, 02:49 AM
Will Brink > wrote:
> I had my blood work done via the LEF and cover some of the tests and
> their results here:
> http://www.brinkzone.com/itsinyourblood.html

Regarding growth hormone/IGF-1 you write: "you may notice one real
bummer in my blood tests, which are my IGF-1 levels. They suck! IGF-1,
which is considered a reflection of GH levels (with some debate) have
been low for me for years [...] I don't seem to suffer outward signs
of a lack of IGF-1, and the cost of GH replacement therapy is very
expensive and not without potential risks ..."

A paper in Growth Hormone & IGF Research 2004 14:296-300 reviews human
observations as well as animal experiments on the levels of GH/IGF-1
as predictors of health and longevity. Many interpret the midlife and
later fall in serum GH and IGF-I levels as something that needs to be
corrected. The obvious logic is that since it declines with aging
restoring the levels may slow down aging or at least alleviate its
symptoms.

However the explanation is more likely that the decline is in fact a
beneficial adaptation to aging, leading to greater insulin
sensitivity, decreased chances of cancer, and greater longevity.

There are certain problems with interpreting levels of GR/IGF-1 in
humans. For example congenital deficiencies tend to be confounded with
other (usually bad) factors that mess up health in general. But direct
experiments on very diverse organisms (yeast, flies, mice) show that
longevity is remarkably increased in organisms deficient in aspects of
growth hormone/IGF1.

Overall, the review of epidemiological data on humans suggest that low
IGF-1 levels add longevity. For example, people with a particular
polymorphism of IGF-1 receptor have lower free IGF-1 levels. There is
larger proportion of such people among those who live over 85, etc.

DZ

Proton Soup
September 18th 04, 03:59 AM
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 02:07:17 GMT, DZ
> wrote:

>Ignoramus474 > wrote:
>> This study concerned HDL cholesterol, however. Only logistic
>> regression coefficients (a statistical concept unknown to most
>> doctors) for coronary disease on LDL-cholesterol were given
>
>Many MDs in research know what logistic regression is - they know it
>as one of the black box procedures you can plug numbers in and get
>back the results without having to understand unimportant
>technicalities. Many approach statistics in general as the cookbook
>collection of recipes and think one can learn it by taking a bunch of
>applied biostatistics courses. Or even by reading stat package
>manuals.

Well, that's pretty much what statistics is, a collection of results.
If they really want to understand, then maybe they should take a
probability course first, then take statistics.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Will Brink
September 18th 04, 02:15 PM
In article >,
DZ > wrote:

> Will Brink > wrote:
> > I had my blood work done via the LEF and cover some of the tests and
> > their results here:
> > http://www.brinkzone.com/itsinyourblood.html
>
> Regarding growth hormone/IGF-1 you write: "you may notice one real
> bummer in my blood tests, which are my IGF-1 levels. They suck! IGF-1,
> which is considered a reflection of GH levels (with some debate) have
> been low for me for years [...] I don't seem to suffer outward signs
> of a lack of IGF-1, and the cost of GH replacement therapy is very
> expensive and not without potential risks ..."
>
> A paper in Growth Hormone & IGF Research 2004 14:296-300 reviews human
> observations as well as animal experiments on the levels of GH/IGF-1
> as predictors of health and longevity. Many interpret the midlife and
> later fall in serum GH and IGF-I levels as something that needs to be
> corrected. The obvious logic is that since it declines with aging
> restoring the levels may slow down aging or at least alleviate its
> symptoms.
>
> However the explanation is more likely that the decline is in fact a
> beneficial adaptation to aging, leading to greater insulin
> sensitivity, decreased chances of cancer, and greater longevity.
>
> There are certain problems with interpreting levels of GR/IGF-1 in
> humans. For example congenital deficiencies tend to be confounded with
> other (usually bad) factors that mess up health in general. But direct
> experiments on very diverse organisms (yeast, flies, mice) show that
> longevity is remarkably increased in organisms deficient in aspects of
> growth hormone/IGF1.
>
> Overall, the review of epidemiological data on humans suggest that low
> IGF-1 levels add longevity. For example, people with a particular
> polymorphism of IGF-1 receptor have lower free IGF-1 levels. There is
> larger proportion of such people among those who live over 85, etc.

I know all of the above. There is some data directly countering the low
IGF and longevity issues, and my interest is of course related more
toward personal interests concerning the GH/IGF axis and its essential
role in LBM and BF. At my age, one should not have serum IGF levels
several points below the lowest range of the tests given the other
variables of my diet, training, and age.


>
> DZ

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Proton Soup
September 18th 04, 03:45 PM
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 06:26:55 GMT, DZ
> wrote:

>Proton Soup > wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 02:07:17 GMT, DZ
> wrote:
>>
>>>Ignoramus474 > wrote:
>>>> This study concerned HDL cholesterol, however. Only logistic
>>>> regression coefficients (a statistical concept unknown to most
>>>> doctors) for coronary disease on LDL-cholesterol were given
>>>
>>>Many MDs in research know what logistic regression is - they know it
>>>as one of the black box procedures you can plug numbers in and get
>>>back the results without having to understand unimportant
>>>technicalities. Many approach statistics in general as the cookbook
>>>collection of recipes and think one can learn it by taking a bunch of
>>>applied biostatistics courses. Or even by reading stat package
>>>manuals.
>>
>> Well, that's pretty much what statistics is, a collection of results.
>> If they really want to understand, then maybe they should take a
>> probability course first, then take statistics.
>
>Statistics is a theory about making decisions under uncertainty.
>
>It is based on probability, but it is not a collection of results or
>recipes on how to plug numbers into formulas.

However you want to look at it, it's still a subset/branch of
probability.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Will Brink
September 18th 04, 06:20 PM
In article >,
DZ > wrote:

> Will Brink > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > DZ > wrote:
> >
> >> Will Brink > wrote:
> >> > I had my blood work done via the LEF and cover some of the tests and
> >> > their results here:
> >> > http://www.brinkzone.com/itsinyourblood.html
> >>
> >> Regarding growth hormone/IGF-1 you write: "you may notice one real
> >> bummer in my blood tests, which are my IGF-1 levels. They suck! IGF-1,
> >> which is considered a reflection of GH levels (with some debate) have
> >> been low for me for years [...] I don't seem to suffer outward signs
> >> of a lack of IGF-1, and the cost of GH replacement therapy is very
> >> expensive and not without potential risks ..."
> >>
> >> A paper in Growth Hormone & IGF Research 2004 14:296-300 reviews human
> >> observations as well as animal experiments on the levels of GH/IGF-1
> >> as predictors of health and longevity. Many interpret the midlife and
> >> later fall in serum GH and IGF-I levels as something that needs to be
> >> corrected. The obvious logic is that since it declines with aging
> >> restoring the levels may slow down aging or at least alleviate its
> >> symptoms.
> >>
> >> However the explanation is more likely that the decline is in fact a
> >> beneficial adaptation to aging, leading to greater insulin
> >> sensitivity, decreased chances of cancer, and greater longevity.
> >>
> >> There are certain problems with interpreting levels of GR/IGF-1 in
> >> humans. For example congenital deficiencies tend to be confounded with
> >> other (usually bad) factors that mess up health in general. But direct
> >> experiments on very diverse organisms (yeast, flies, mice) show that
> >> longevity is remarkably increased in organisms deficient in aspects of
> >> growth hormone/IGF1.
> >>
> >> Overall, the review of epidemiological data on humans suggest that low
> >> IGF-1 levels add longevity. For example, people with a particular
> >> polymorphism of IGF-1 receptor have lower free IGF-1 levels. There is
> >> larger proportion of such people among those who live over 85, etc.
> >
> > I know all of the above.
>
> I have no doubt that you do. But the discussion on your page is a
> biased presentation for those who don't know. I'd say the same about
> your LEF reviews (which I liked overall) regarding possible effect of
> creatine on levels of growth hormone, as if it is necessarily a good
> thing to have the levels bumped up.

In all of life, there is nothing that does not have a risk to benefit
ratio to consider. In my view, the risks and downsides of going through
life with low GH far outweigh the risks of maintaining youthful levels
via what ever modality is required, be it nutritional or
pharmacological. And as I am very clear, proper blood work to tweak dose
of any drug is the key to greatly increasing benefit while greatly
decreasing potential for long or short term side effects. Now you can
take the more conservative position that not enough is known at this
time to safely manipulate such hormones, and I would not agree with that
position.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Keith
September 18th 04, 07:40 PM
"Larry Hodges" > wrote in message >...
> About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
>
> Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
> HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
> LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
> HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
>
> Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.
>
> Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF is much
> lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I be concerned?

Two schools of thought here: my wife (a PA) tells me that the "latest"
recommendations to docs about total cholesterol are that the lower,
the better (even for those near or only slightly above 200). On the
other hand IIRC, studies show the strongest link between mortality and
not total cholesterol, but the ratio of triglycerides to HDL (or maybe
it was vice versa). What were your triglyceride levels?

Either way, why don't you ask your doctor?

Helgi Briem
September 20th 04, 10:23 AM
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 06:14:18 GMT, DZ
> wrote:

>I think a lot of it is the attitude. One may lack some background and
>still work on a problem filling in the knowledge gaps while "dragging
>sleigh through asphalt" e.g. through reading or collaboration. There
>are people with primarily biological education who made significant
>advances in mathematical biology (Motoo Kimura) or even mathematics
>(Sewall Wright). I've heard Wright's ideas on structural equations
>were later reinvented in econometrics.

A biologist, Ronald Aylmer Fisher, pretty much invented
statistics as we know them today. He, along with Sewall Wright
and JBS Haldane, was one of the originators of Neo-Darwinism,
the synthesis of Mendelian genetics with Darwins theory of
natural selection that underpins all biological teaching today.

--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is

Never worry about anything that you see on the news.
To get on the news it must be sufficiently rare
that your chances of being involved are negligible!

DZ
September 20th 04, 03:27 PM
Helgi Briem > wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 06:14:18 GMT, DZ wrote:
>
>>I think a lot of it is the attitude. One may lack some background and
>>still work on a problem filling in the knowledge gaps while "dragging
>>sleigh through asphalt" e.g. through reading or collaboration. There
>>are people with primarily biological education who made significant
>>advances in mathematical biology (Motoo Kimura) or even mathematics
>>(Sewall Wright). I've heard Wright's ideas on structural equations
>>were later reinvented in econometrics.
>
> A biologist, Ronald Aylmer Fisher, pretty much invented
> statistics as we know them today. He, along with Sewall Wright
> and JBS Haldane, was one of the originators of Neo-Darwinism,
> the synthesis of Mendelian genetics with Darwins theory of
> natural selection that underpins all biological teaching today.

My point was about people who had primarily biological
background. Both Fisher and Haldane had thorough mathematical
education. But Kimura started as a botanist and studied mathematics on
his own.

DZ

slysmirk
September 27th 04, 10:39 AM
OK, learned ladies and gentlemen, I come before you, as a regular
lurker of 10 years and occasional poster when I had something to offer
under several different aliases (sorry Robert Schuh) as I have moved
around, in search of learning.

After a couple of years of ‘clean living' I decided to get some
blood-work done just to reassure myself that several years of AAS use
had not ****ed me up, and basically be smug. I have just had a rude
awakening, and am ****ting bricks. My doctor is less than impressed
and is all ready to prescribe statins, which I know little of at this
stage, but do not like the sound of. Your comments are thus sought.

Total Cholesterol 11.7mmol/l (<5.0 desirable)
HDL Cholesterol 1.8mmol/l (>5.0 desirable)
LDL Cholesterol 8.8mmol/l (<3.0 desirable)
Triglyceride (non-fasting) 2.3mmol/l (<2.0 desirable)
Cholesterol Ratio 6.5 (<4.5 desirable)

The nonfasting was test was done in the middle of the day, aftfer
breakfast (below) and maybe 0.5 roast chicken. You can see my
concerns, and those of my doctor, especially given that I am 35 years
old!! Additional information:

My Thyroid is OK
- FT4 14.7 pmol/l (normal is 10-24)
- TSH 2.5units/ml (normal is 0.4-4.0)
My Proteins are pretty much OK
- Total 75g/l (normal 65-83)
- Albumin 49g/l (normal 35-48)
- Gloulin 26g/l (normal 22-36)
My liver seems to be working OK too.
- Biliburin total 8umol/l (normal 1-24)
- Alkaline Phosphatase 50 units (normal 25-110)
- GGT 17 units (normal 0-60)
- ALT 40 units (normal 0-55)
- AST 28IU/L (normal 0-25)
And as an aside my PSA was OK, but after finding my Cholesterol levels
out a few hours before having my blood pressure, which was 155/85.

Some background:
- AAS cycles (2000mg/wk) of 20 weeks duration for several years in the
late 1990's, along with Clen and ECA-stacking.
- Last AAS cycle was a ‘refreasher' that finished 2.5 years ago. No
clen of ECA in that time or since.
- 35 years old, mostly white.
- 6 foot tall (182cm), and 220lb (100kg) (BMI=30) - bf would be in
the high 10's with vascularity around the chest and shoulders, but no
six-pack.
- Non-smoker, occasional drinker of a wine over dinner.
- Regular multi-vitamin user, vit c, b, etc. I used to take 2-3
recommned dosage, but now am at recommended dosage except for vit c,
which is around 2000mg/day.
- I do not even use prohormones now, although have dabbled with some
HMB I got cheap.
- Visibly healthy, virile, potent, all my own hair and teeth!
- The only stimulants (now) are guarana and coffee
- I am ‘sensitive' to sugar, -perhaps as a result of a lowcarb diet?
- Both grandfather dead of heart attacks at around 60y/o
- One grandfather diabetic

My diet is rather regular, irrespective of training day or recovery
day. I have not done a calorie count, but it is basically as follows:
Breakfast is usually 12 egg white and 4 yolk omelette (using olive
oil) with four mushrooms and a tomato, a bowl of fruit (eg 0.5 banana,
0.5 orange, 0.5 pear) and lots of yogurt, 3 large corn wafers with
lots of peanut butter, and two cups of coffee.

During the day I'll eat 1.0 to 1.5 roast chickens, although I do not
eat the skin or visible flaps of fat, and drain the liquid fat off of
it is in liquid form. These chickens are cooked in the supermarket in
a free-draining type oven. A salad is usually had, with no dressing,
although perhaps some hummus. Maybe another couple of corn wafers and
peanut butter should I be feeling peckish.

Should I train that day, post-training (before dinner) is typically a
bar (40gr protein, 20gr carbs, 15gr fat (10 is sat-fat)) followed by a
piece of fruit and a (big) shake.

Dinner is a ‘normal' dinner, maybe a steak, typically low/no starchy
carbs, but often with ˝ a plate of stir-fried (olive oil) veges.
Before going to bed, and again in the middle of the night, is another
(big) shake.

I have recently been eating a lot of cheese-n-crackers due to it being
‘big' with a new friend, and have recently started having full/half
cream milk in my coffee. I do not eat butter or margarine, rarely eat
rice or potatoes, processed foods/chips/fries/cookies/biscuits etc, or
ice-cream, refined sugar, or any ‘junk' food. Should I go out for a
meal, I still get the protein, but don't fret too much about the fat
or the carbs, but still will order ‘clean'.
I used to eat tuna by the can most every day, but now rarely do for no
real reason.

What ****es me about this is while I was on the AAS/clen/eECA my
doctor at the time never blinked at my cholesterol levels or any
others (although I recall my liver functions were a bit high), and I
was eating over 2 lbs (1kg) of steak a day, fistfuls of cheese, eggs
for Africa, potatoes like a madman, was fatter, and less aerobically
fit!! What gives!! :(

Google has told me quite a bit, and I would like to thank Will, Lyle,
Elzi, David, and the no longer visible Justin for their comments over
time. I feel a little reassured as to the seriousness of this in light
of risk factors and dropping dead, but I am still worried a little,
and the one person I mentioned this too gave me no end of grief.

Preliminary indications of contributors to these readings (as in my
diet) revolve around saturated fats, peanut butter and the sat-fat
that could be in the bars, and trans-fats, of which I am unaware I am
taking in any. What about the dairy products? Improvers of these
readings revolve around fibre such as ‘Metamucil', Cod liver oil,
garlic, vitamin E, Olive oil, peanuts (?? Contrary to the previous)
and other nuts, 1g to 3g a day of niacin, and 4 to 6 Tbsp. of
granulated lecithin.

Comments on these things, any other things, or replacement foods to
keep the calories up would be appreciated. Comments on Ld(a), and that
Cholesterol Myth book Watson talked of (which is all news to me) would
also go down well.

Should anybody have other links, favourite sites, or bits of wisdom
that Google may have missed, please post them here for me (esp. as the
hotmail account I have logged on with no longer works). I am fishing
here and more than a little ****ed that I am ‘healthy' (and indeed
much ‘healthier' than before) by most every metric I am aware of, yet
these cholesterol figures indicate I am not far off being a
dead-man-walking at the ripe old age of 35.


Cheers, and thanks in advance

slysmirk
September 27th 04, 10:42 AM
OK, learned ladies and gentlemen, I come before you, as a regular
lurker of 10 years and occasional poster when I had something to offer
under several different aliases (sorry Robert Schuh) as I have moved
around, in search of learning.

After a couple of years of ‘clean living' I decided to get some
blood-work done just to reassure myself that several years of AAS use
had not ****ed me up, and basically be smug. I have just had a rude
awakening, and am ****ting bricks. My doctor is less than impressed
and is all ready to prescribe statins, which I know little of at this
stage, but do not like the sound of. Your comments are thus sought.

Total Cholesterol 11.7mmol/l (<5.0 desirable)
HDL Cholesterol 1.8mmol/l (>5.0 desirable)
LDL Cholesterol 8.8mmol/l (<3.0 desirable)
Triglyceride (non-fasting) 2.3mmol/l (<2.0 desirable)
Cholesterol Ratio 6.5 (<4.5 desirable)

The nonfasting was test was done in the middle of the day, aftfer
breakfast (below) and maybe 0.5 roast chicken. You can see my
concerns, and those of my doctor, especially given that I am 35 years
old!! Additional information:

My Thyroid is OK
- FT4 14.7 pmol/l (normal is 10-24)
- TSH 2.5units/ml (normal is 0.4-4.0)
My Proteins are pretty much OK
- Total 75g/l (normal 65-83)
- Albumin 49g/l (normal 35-48)
- Gloulin 26g/l (normal 22-36)
My liver seems to be working OK too.
- Biliburin total 8umol/l (normal 1-24)
- Alkaline Phosphatase 50 units (normal 25-110)
- GGT 17 units (normal 0-60)
- ALT 40 units (normal 0-55)
- AST 28IU/L (normal 0-25)
And as an aside my PSA was OK, but after finding my Cholesterol levels
out a few hours before having my blood pressure, which was 155/85.

Some background:
- AAS cycles (2000mg/wk) of 20 weeks duration for
several years in the late 1990's, along with
Clen and ECA-stacking.
- Last AAS cycle was a ‘refreasher' that finished
2.5 years ago. No clen of ECA in that time or
since.
- 35 years old, mostly white.
- 6 foot tall (182cm), and 220lb (100kg) (BMI=30)
- bf would be in the high 10's with vascularity
around the chest and shoulders, but no six-pack.
- Non-smoker, occasional drinker of a wine over
dinner.
- Regular multi-vitamin user, vit c, b, etc. I
used to take 2-3 recommned dosage, but now am
at recommended dosage except for vit c, which
is around 2000mg/day.
- I do not even use prohormones now, although
have dabbled with some HMB I got cheap.
- Visibly healthy, virile, potent, all my own
hair and teeth!
- The only stimulants (now) are guarana and coffee
- I am ‘sensitive' to sugar, -perhaps as a result
of a lowcarb diet?
- Both grandfather dead of heart attacks at around 60y/o
- One grandfather diabetic

My diet is rather regular, irrespective of training day or recovery
day. I have not done a calorie count, but it is basically as follows:
Breakfast is usually 12 egg white and 4 yolk omelette (using olive
oil) with four mushrooms and a tomato, a bowl of fruit (eg 0.5 banana,
0.5 orange, 0.5 pear) and lots of yogurt, 3 large corn wafers with
lots of peanut butter, and two cups of coffee.

During the day I'll eat 1.0 to 1.5 roast chickens, although I do not
eat the skin or visible flaps of fat, and drain the liquid fat off of
it is in liquid form. These chickens are cooked in the supermarket in
a free-draining type oven. A salad is usually had, with no dressing,
although perhaps some hummus. Maybe another couple of corn wafers and
peanut butter should I be feeling peckish.

Should I train that day, post-training (before dinner) is typically a
bar (40gr protein, 20gr carbs, 15gr fat (10 is sat-fat)) followed by a
piece of fruit and a (big) shake.

Dinner is a ‘normal' dinner, maybe a steak, typically low/no starchy
carbs, but often with ˝ a plate of stir-fried (olive oil) veges.
Before going to bed, and again in the middle of the night, is another
(big) shake.

I have recently been eating a lot of cheese-n-crackers due to it being
‘big' with a new friend, and have recently started having full/half
cream milk in my coffee. I do not eat butter or margarine, rarely eat
rice or potatoes, processed foods/chips/fries/cookies/biscuits etc, or
ice-cream, refined sugar, or any ‘junk' food. Should I go out for a
meal, I still get the protein, but don't fret too much about the fat
or the carbs, but still will order ‘clean'.
I used to eat tuna by the can most every day, but now rarely do for no
real reason.

What ****es me about this is while I was on the AAS/clen/eECA my
doctor at the time never blinked at my cholesterol levels or any
others (although I recall my liver functions were a bit high), and I
was eating over 2 lbs (1kg) of steak a day, fistfuls of cheese, eggs
for Africa, potatoes like a madman, was fatter, and less aerobically
fit!! What gives!! :(

Google has told me quite a bit, and I would like to thank Will, Lyle,
Elzi, David, and the no longer visible Justin for their comments over
time. I feel a little reassured as to the seriousness of this in light
of risk factors and dropping dead, but I am still worried a little,
and the one person I mentioned this too gave me no end of grief.

Preliminary indications of contributors to these readings (as in my
diet) revolve around saturated fats, peanut butter and the sat-fat
that could be in the bars, and trans-fats, of which I am unaware I am
taking in any. What about the dairy products? Improvers of these
readings revolve around fibre such as ‘Metamucil', Cod liver oil,
garlic, vitamin E, Olive oil, peanuts (?? Contrary to the previous)
and other nuts, 1g to 3g a day of niacin, and 4 to 6 Tbsp. of
granulated lecithin.

Comments on these things, any other things, or replacement foods to
keep the calories up would be appreciated. Comments on Ld(a), and that
Cholesterol Myth book Watson talked of (which is all news to me) would
also go down well.

Should anybody have other links, favourite sites, or bits of wisdom
that Google may have missed, please post them here for me (esp. as the
hotmail account I have logged on with no longer works). I am fishing
here and more than a little ****ed that I am ‘healthy' (and indeed
much ‘healthier' than before) by most every metric I am aware of, yet
these cholesterol figures indicate I am not far off being a
dead-man-walking at the ripe old age of 35.



Cheers, and thanks in advance

David Cohen
September 27th 04, 12:14 PM
"slysmirk" > wrote
> OK, learned ladies and gentlemen, I come before you, as a regular
> lurker of 10 years and occasional poster when I had something to offer
> under several different aliases (sorry Robert Schuh) as I have moved
> around, in search of learning.
>
> After a couple of years of 'clean living' I decided to get some
> blood-work done just to reassure myself that several years of AAS use
> had not ****ed me up, and basically be smug. I have just had a rude
> awakening, and am ****ting bricks. My doctor is less than impressed
> and is all ready to prescribe statins, which I know little of at this
> stage, but do not like the sound of. Your comments are thus sought.
>
> Total Cholesterol 11.7mmol/l (<5.0 desirable)
> HDL Cholesterol 1.8mmol/l (>5.0 desirable)
> LDL Cholesterol 8.8mmol/l (<3.0 desirable)
> Triglyceride (non-fasting) 2.3mmol/l (<2.0 desirable)
> Cholesterol Ratio 6.5 (<4.5 desirable)
>
> The nonfasting was test was done in the middle of the day, aftfer
> breakfast (below) and maybe 0.5 roast chicken. You can see my
> concerns, and those of my doctor, especially given that I am 35 years
> old!! Additional information:

You wasted your $ and your doctor is a moron. Now, go fast for 12
hours...overnight is convenient...and have the tests repeated.

David

Will Brink
September 27th 04, 02:31 PM
In article >,
(slysmirk) wrote:

> Should anybody have other links, favourite sites, or bits of wisdom
> that Google may have missed, please post them here for me (esp. as the
> hotmail account I have logged on with no longer works).

See:http://www.brinkzone.com/itsinyourblood.html

>I am fishing
> here and more than a little ****ed that I am ‘healthy' (and indeed
> much ‘healthier' than before) by most every metric I am aware of, yet
> these cholesterol figures indicate I am not far off being a
> dead-man-walking at the ripe old age of 35.
>
>
>
> Cheers, and thanks in advance

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Bob Fusillo
September 27th 04, 03:29 PM
I got the results of my blood work the day before yesterday: cholesterol 90.
The doctor, an internist with a heart specialty, says that in light of
recent studies, he wants it down to 50.
Probabilities? The fact that I am not dead yet should "prove" something, but
I suspect it does not.
rjf


"Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
...
> About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
>
> Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
> HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
> LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
> HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
>
> Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.
>
> Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF is much
> lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I be concerned?
> --
> -Larry
>
>

David Cohen
September 27th 04, 04:23 PM
"Bob Fusillo" > wrote
> I got the results of my blood work the day before yesterday: cholesterol
90.
> The doctor, an internist with a heart specialty, says that in light of
> recent studies, he wants it down to 50.

He wants your TOTAL cholesterol to be 50?!? That's a typo, right? Yours is
190 and he wants it 150, right? You just skipped the "1", right? Please say
right.

David

> Probabilities? The fact that I am not dead yet should "prove" something,
but
> I suspect it does not.
> rjf
>
>
> "Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
> ...
> > About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
> >
> > Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
> > HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
> > LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
> > HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
> >
> > Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.
> >
> > Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF is much
> > lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I be concerned?
> > --
> > -Larry
> >
> >
>
>

Bob Fusillo
September 27th 04, 08:34 PM
Sorry -- you are right. When he told me to get a colonoscopy, I went blank!
But -- things HAVE changed --
rjf

"David Cohen" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Bob Fusillo" > wrote
> > I got the results of my blood work the day before yesterday: cholesterol
> 90.
> > The doctor, an internist with a heart specialty, says that in light of
> > recent studies, he wants it down to 50.
>
> He wants your TOTAL cholesterol to be 50?!? That's a typo, right? Yours is
> 190 and he wants it 150, right? You just skipped the "1", right? Please
say
> right.
>
> David
>
> > Probabilities? The fact that I am not dead yet should "prove" something,
> but
> > I suspect it does not.
> > rjf
> >
> >
> > "Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
> > >
> > > Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
> > > HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
> > > LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
> > > HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
> > >
> > > Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.
> > >
> > > Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF is
much
> > > lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I be concerned?
> > > --
> > > -Larry
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

David Cohen
September 27th 04, 10:30 PM
"Bob Fusillo" > wrote
> Sorry -- you are right. When he told me to get a colonoscopy, I went
blank!
> But -- things HAVE changed --

Get good drugs...valiun, versed, ativan, something nice...and enjoy the anal
probe.

David
>
> "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "Bob Fusillo" > wrote
> > > I got the results of my blood work the day before yesterday:
cholesterol
> > 90.
> > > The doctor, an internist with a heart specialty, says that in light of
> > > recent studies, he wants it down to 50.
> >
> > He wants your TOTAL cholesterol to be 50?!? That's a typo, right? Yours
is
> > 190 and he wants it 150, right? You just skipped the "1", right? Please
> say
> > right.
> >
> > David
> >
> > > Probabilities? The fact that I am not dead yet should "prove"
something,
> > but
> > > I suspect it does not.
> > > rjf
> > >
> > >
> > > "Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
> > > >
> > > > Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
> > > > HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
> > > > LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
> > > > HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
> > > >
> > > > Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.
> > > >
> > > > Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF is
> much
> > > > lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I be
concerned?
> > > > --
> > > > -Larry
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

MJL
September 28th 04, 01:50 AM
On 27 Sep 2004 02:42:31 -0700, (slysmirk) wrote:

>OK, learned ladies and gentlemen, I come before you, as a regular
>lurker of 10 years and occasional poster when I had something to offer
>under several different aliases (sorry Robert Schuh) as I have moved
>around, in search of learning.
>
>After a couple of years of ‘clean living' I decided to get some
>blood-work done just to reassure myself that several years of AAS use
>had not ****ed me up, and basically be smug. I have just had a rude
>awakening, and am ****ting bricks. My doctor is less than impressed
>and is all ready to prescribe statins, which I know little of at this
>stage, but do not like the sound of. Your comments are thus sought.
>
>Total Cholesterol 11.7mmol/l (<5.0 desirable)
>HDL Cholesterol 1.8mmol/l (>5.0 desirable)
>LDL Cholesterol 8.8mmol/l (<3.0 desirable)
>Triglyceride (non-fasting) 2.3mmol/l (<2.0 desirable)
>Cholesterol Ratio 6.5 (<4.5 desirable)
>
>The nonfasting was test was done in the middle of the day, aftfer
>breakfast (below) and maybe 0.5 roast chicken. You can see my
>concerns, and those of my doctor, especially given that I am 35 years
>old!! Additional information:

Why nonfasting?

Get a fasting lipid profile and also get a cardiologist. Statins may
not be a bad idea for you and perhaps even daily aspirin. Also, don't
underrate how much metamucil (or similar) can help lower blood
cholesterol.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

Bob Fusillo
September 28th 04, 02:04 AM
An acquaintance of mine, a State supreme court judge, had such a probe. On
his way out, the secretary said " Good afternoon, your Honor." To which he
grumbled " Honor Hell! I've got none left after that!"
rjf


"David Cohen" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Bob Fusillo" > wrote
> > Sorry -- you are right. When he told me to get a colonoscopy, I went
> blank!
> > But -- things HAVE changed --
>
> Get good drugs...valiun, versed, ativan, something nice...and enjoy the
anal
> probe.
>
> David
> >
> > "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > >
> > > "Bob Fusillo" > wrote
> > > > I got the results of my blood work the day before yesterday:
> cholesterol
> > > 90.
> > > > The doctor, an internist with a heart specialty, says that in light
of
> > > > recent studies, he wants it down to 50.
> > >
> > > He wants your TOTAL cholesterol to be 50?!? That's a typo, right?
Yours
> is
> > > 190 and he wants it 150, right? You just skipped the "1", right?
Please
> > say
> > > right.
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > > > Probabilities? The fact that I am not dead yet should "prove"
> something,
> > > but
> > > > I suspect it does not.
> > > > rjf
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
> > > > >
> > > > > Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
> > > > > HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
> > > > > LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
> > > > > HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
> > > > >
> > > > > Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF is
> > much
> > > > > lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I be
> concerned?
> > > > > --
> > > > > -Larry
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Robert Schuh
September 28th 04, 06:24 AM
slysmirk wrote:

> OK, learned ladies and gentlemen, I come before you, as a regular
> lurker of 10 years and occasional poster when I had something to offer
> under several different aliases (sorry Robert Schuh) as I have moved
> around, in search of learning.
>
> After a couple of years of ‘clean living' I decided to get some
> blood-work done just to reassure myself that several years of AAS use
> had not ****ed me up, and basically be smug. I have just had a rude
> awakening, and am ****ting bricks. My doctor is less than impressed
> and is all ready to prescribe statins, which I know little of at this
> stage, but do not like the sound of. Your comments are thus sought.
>
> Total Cholesterol 11.7mmol/l (<5.0 desirable)
> HDL Cholesterol 1.8mmol/l (>5.0 desirable)
> LDL Cholesterol 8.8mmol/l (<3.0 desirable)
> Triglyceride (non-fasting) 2.3mmol/l (<2.0 desirable)
> Cholesterol Ratio 6.5 (<4.5 desirable)
>
> The nonfasting was test was done in the middle of the day, aftfer
> breakfast (below) and maybe 0.5 roast chicken. You can see my
> concerns, and those of my doctor, especially given that I am 35 years
> old!! Additional information:
>
> My Thyroid is OK
> - FT4 14.7 pmol/l (normal is 10-24)
> - TSH 2.5units/ml (normal is 0.4-4.0)
> My Proteins are pretty much OK
> - Total 75g/l (normal 65-83)
> - Albumin 49g/l (normal 35-48)
> - Gloulin 26g/l (normal 22-36)
> My liver seems to be working OK too.
> - Biliburin total 8umol/l (normal 1-24)
> - Alkaline Phosphatase 50 units (normal 25-110)
> - GGT 17 units (normal 0-60)
> - ALT 40 units (normal 0-55)
> - AST 28IU/L (normal 0-25)
> And as an aside my PSA was OK, but after finding my Cholesterol levels
> out a few hours before having my blood pressure, which was 155/85.
>
> Some background:
> - AAS cycles (2000mg/wk) of 20 weeks duration for several years in the
> late 1990's, along with Clen and ECA-stacking.
> - Last AAS cycle was a ‘refreasher' that finished 2.5 years ago. No
> clen of ECA in that time or since.
> - 35 years old, mostly white.
> - 6 foot tall (182cm), and 220lb (100kg) (BMI=30) - bf would be in
> the high 10's with vascularity around the chest and shoulders, but no
> six-pack.
> - Non-smoker, occasional drinker of a wine over dinner.
> - Regular multi-vitamin user, vit c, b, etc. I used to take 2-3
> recommned dosage, but now am at recommended dosage except for vit c,
> which is around 2000mg/day.
> - I do not even use prohormones now, although have dabbled with some
> HMB I got cheap.
> - Visibly healthy, virile, potent, all my own hair and teeth!
> - The only stimulants (now) are guarana and coffee
> - I am ‘sensitive' to sugar, -perhaps as a result of a lowcarb diet?
> - Both grandfather dead of heart attacks at around 60y/o
> - One grandfather diabetic
>
> My diet is rather regular, irrespective of training day or recovery
> day. I have not done a calorie count, but it is basically as follows:
> Breakfast is usually 12 egg white and 4 yolk omelette (using olive
> oil) with four mushrooms and a tomato, a bowl of fruit (eg 0.5 banana,
> 0.5 orange, 0.5 pear) and lots of yogurt, 3 large corn wafers with
> lots of peanut butter, and two cups of coffee.
>
> During the day I'll eat 1.0 to 1.5 roast chickens, although I do not
> eat the skin or visible flaps of fat, and drain the liquid fat off of
> it is in liquid form. These chickens are cooked in the supermarket in
> a free-draining type oven. A salad is usually had, with no dressing,
> although perhaps some hummus. Maybe another couple of corn wafers and
> peanut butter should I be feeling peckish.
>
> Should I train that day, post-training (before dinner) is typically a
> bar (40gr protein, 20gr carbs, 15gr fat (10 is sat-fat)) followed by a
> piece of fruit and a (big) shake.
>
> Dinner is a ‘normal' dinner, maybe a steak, typically low/no starchy
> carbs, but often with ˝ a plate of stir-fried (olive oil) veges.
> Before going to bed, and again in the middle of the night, is another
> (big) shake.
>
> I have recently been eating a lot of cheese-n-crackers due to it being
> ‘big' with a new friend, and have recently started having full/half
> cream milk in my coffee. I do not eat butter or margarine, rarely eat
> rice or potatoes, processed foods/chips/fries/cookies/biscuits etc, or
> ice-cream, refined sugar, or any ‘junk' food. Should I go out for a
> meal, I still get the protein, but don't fret too much about the fat
> or the carbs, but still will order ‘clean'.
> I used to eat tuna by the can most every day, but now rarely do for no
> real reason.
>
> What ****es me about this is while I was on the AAS/clen/eECA my
> doctor at the time never blinked at my cholesterol levels or any
> others (although I recall my liver functions were a bit high), and I
> was eating over 2 lbs (1kg) of steak a day, fistfuls of cheese, eggs
> for Africa, potatoes like a madman, was fatter, and less aerobically
> fit!! What gives!! :(
>
> Google has told me quite a bit, and I would like to thank Will, Lyle,
> Elzi, David, and the no longer visible Justin for their comments over
> time. I feel a little reassured as to the seriousness of this in light
> of risk factors and dropping dead, but I am still worried a little,
> and the one person I mentioned this too gave me no end of grief.
>
> Preliminary indications of contributors to these readings (as in my
> diet) revolve around saturated fats, peanut butter and the sat-fat
> that could be in the bars, and trans-fats, of which I am unaware I am
> taking in any. What about the dairy products? Improvers of these
> readings revolve around fibre such as ‘Metamucil', Cod liver oil,
> garlic, vitamin E, Olive oil, peanuts (?? Contrary to the previous)
> and other nuts, 1g to 3g a day of niacin, and 4 to 6 Tbsp. of
> granulated lecithin.
>
> Comments on these things, any other things, or replacement foods to
> keep the calories up would be appreciated. Comments on Ld(a), and that
> Cholesterol Myth book Watson talked of (which is all news to me) would
> also go down well.
>
> Should anybody have other links, favourite sites, or bits of wisdom
> that Google may have missed, please post them here for me (esp. as the
> hotmail account I have logged on with no longer works). I am fishing
> here and more than a little ****ed that I am ‘healthy' (and indeed
> much ‘healthier' than before) by most every metric I am aware of, yet
> these cholesterol figures indicate I am not far off being a
> dead-man-walking at the ripe old age of 35.
>
> Cheers, and thanks in advance

You HAVE to take that test fasting. There is ZERO correlation between your
steroid use and your HDL, Cholesterol levels. You could just have poor genetics.



--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

slysmirk
September 28th 04, 10:12 AM
MJL > wrote in message >...
>
[snip]
>
> Why nonfasting?
>
> Get a fasting lipid profile and also get a cardiologist. Statins may
> not be a bad idea for you and perhaps even daily aspirin. Also, don't
> underrate how much metamucil (or similar) can help lower blood
> cholesterol.


Mike, David and Will,

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them.

With regards to the non-fasting test, it was done because it was done
when I had all the rest done, and neither of us was expecting that
sort of news. The doctor in the follow-up has asked for fasting
tests, which I will do in a couple of weeks.

Thanks for the link, Will. I accept the low correlation of
Cholesterol and CVD that you discuss, and this is supported elsewhere.
Having said that, I would still like to pull mine downward a bit from
2.3 times the maximum recommended, even if only to an equivalent of
what you have at 1.1 times the maximum, by using the minor changes
below and non-pharmaceutical intervention. I am not going to get
obsessed with dropping it to 0.75 of the max, and certainly not doing
anything silly like go high-carb.

With regards to the suggestions from Mike, one of the first things I
did today was buy a Metamucil clone, and some Niacin. Thinking about
it, when I was using the AAS, I was also eating oats or similar for
breakfast, and do not now; - I suspect my fibre intake might be
crappy.

So the plan is to maintain the basis of my diet as it stands, with
upping the fibre via Metamucil, Niacin, and a fasting test for next
time. So until next time.

Cheers, and again thanks.

KennyCrox
September 28th 04, 03:03 PM
>I got the results of my blood work the day before yesterday: cholesterol 90.
>The doctor, an internist with a heart specialty, says that in light of
>recent studies, he wants it down to 50.
>Probabilities? The fact that I am not dead yet should "prove" something, but
>I suspect it does not.
>rjf
>
>
>"Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
...
>> About a year ago, I had a blood test done. Here are my results:
>>
>> Cholesterol: 244 (normal is 140 to 199)
>> HDL Cholesterol: 59 (normal is 35 to 80)
>> LDL: 156 (normal is 0 to 129)
>> HDL ratio 4.1 ( < 5.0 is considered low risk)
>>
>> Note: Normal as listed on the results from the lab.
>>
>> Is 244 really that high? FWIW, I've dropped about 15lbs and BF is much
>> lower. But assuming it's still at this level, should I be concerned?
>> --
>> -Larry

High cholesterol readings may not be a problem according to this article,
http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/benefits_cholest.html

Another article back in 1995, "Is Iron Manking You Sick," went into how many
with high cholesterol reading were in good health with other with high
cholesterol reading were having cardiovascular problems. The article then went
into how to much iron combined with high cholesterol was the problem.

One part of the article looked at pre and post menpausal women. Pre menapausal
women had few if any cardiovascular problems. Post menapausal women's cardi
problems rivaled mens.

Pre menapausal women were dumping iron from their system, due to having
peroids. Post menapausal women iron counts were higher due to no periods.

Dr Edo Erasmus in his book, "Fats the Heal, Fats the Kill," touched on the
problems with high iron and cholesterol.

So, the cholesterol issue is being re-examined. However, the AMA tends to drag
on chaning their view of things. And many doctors just can't keep up with all
of the new information coming out.

One of the main things to watch is your HDL (good cholesterol) to LDL (bad
cholesterol) readings and ratios.

Kenny Croxdale

Will Brink
October 3rd 04, 03:34 PM
In article >,
(slysmirk) wrote:

> MJL > wrote in message
> >...
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Why nonfasting?
> >
> > Get a fasting lipid profile and also get a cardiologist. Statins may
> > not be a bad idea for you and perhaps even daily aspirin. Also, don't
> > underrate how much metamucil (or similar) can help lower blood
> > cholesterol.
>
>
> Mike, David and Will,
>
> Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them.
>
> With regards to the non-fasting test, it was done because it was done
> when I had all the rest done, and neither of us was expecting that
> sort of news. The doctor in the follow-up has asked for fasting
> tests, which I will do in a couple of weeks.
>
> Thanks for the link, Will. I accept the low correlation of
> Cholesterol and CVD that you discuss, and this is supported elsewhere.
> Having said that, I would still like to pull mine downward a bit from
> 2.3 times the maximum recommended, even if only to an equivalent of
> what you have at 1.1 times the maximum, by using the minor changes
> below and non-pharmaceutical intervention. I am not going to get
> obsessed with dropping it to 0.75 of the max, and certainly not doing
> anything silly like go high-carb.

Then, get all the other CVD risk tests done (see article) and see what
you true risk is, test when fasted, adjust diet, add in supps known to
help, and don't f-ing worry about it. Data shows stress is linked to CVD
also!

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/