Forums >Health and Nutrition>Failed cholesterol and triglycerides numbers
Joggaholic
I started running consistently last year since after my annual checkup, which showed that my cholesterol numbers weren't all that great:
2011
Total: 197 <<<
HDL: 56
LDL: 111
Triglycerides: 153
So now, a year later, I just got my latest report back, and I am disappointed...
2012
Total: 193 <<< almost the same
HDL: 70
LDL: 72
Triglycerides: 254 <<< so much worse
My doc wasn't all that concerned since I'm otherwise healthy and I'm not really in any danger zone, and so he gave me the generic "less fat, less sugar" diet solution (same as what I found from googling around). I had hoped to be healthier and fitter rather than just being not-in-immediate-need-of-medication. Looking at the numbers I don't think I have made much progress at all, and I feel kind of deflated. I've lost a few pounds even though I'm already underweight, and before the checkup in 2011 I was quiet sedentary, so logics seem to suggest that all these running I did hadn't really helped too much at all, or that somehow my diet got all screwed up this year. (The only noticeable difference in my eating habit is that I'm eating more now to fuel my runs, and drinking a lot more Gatorade and the like after running...)
I know I can't expect some medical diagnosis over a message board, I'm just kind of bummed and felt like ranting...
Queen of 3rd Place
Bummer, Wing. Sounds to me like a genetic thing.
Ex runner
Good Bad & The Monkey
You are looking at the wrong numbers.
Let's try this again:
Total: 197
HDL: 56 <<< Not bad. This is the GOOD cholesterol.
LDL: 111 <<< A hair high. This is the BAD cholesterol.
Total: 193
HDL: 70 <<< MUCH MUCH better, and this is a highly dreamy number.
LDL: 72 <<< MUCH MUCH better, and this is a highly dreamy number.
Triglycerides: 254
Your good cholesterol is essentially the same as your bad cholesterol. That is AWESOME. Your total cholesterol in both cases is under 200, which is great. The reason it did not change is because it is a number that combines HDL, LDL and some of your triglycerides. Since your LDL went down BUT your HDL went up, you would not expect much change in your total. And the variation in triglycerides is pretty much hour-to-hour, so I would not worry about it.
I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.
Poor baby
Not a bummer. It is good news
Thank you Trent! I have no idea how to interpret the HDL and LDL values. I know that the "cutoff" for HDL is > 40 and LDL < 130. I have no idea what it means to have say HDL = 70 vs HDL = 100, or LDL = 20 vs LDL = 70... etc. I take that "highly dreamy number" is good and I placed the wrong focus on the high trig number? How bad is 254 anyway? (I boldfaced the trig number because it was boldfaced in my blood report, which jumped out like a red flag at me) Thanks again so much for the explanation!
254 is higher than 153. But if you were to check next week, the trigs could just as easily be 102. They fluctuate fairly wildly and inflammation can cause them to rise, including from recent running. I would do nothing about the trigs right now, and then recheck next year.
I wish my HDL were that high....
They say I could exercise more to increase them (uh huh....right) or drink more alcohol. Maybe I'll try the second method after monkey.....
Live the Adventure. Enjoy the Journey. Be Kind. Have Faith!
We could try during if you wanna.
Only if you promise to carry me to the finish.
I'm down for that.
Feeling the growl again
2012 Total: 193 HDL: 70 <<< MUCH MUCH better, and this is a highly dreamy number. LDL: 72 <<< MUCH MUCH better, and this is a highly dreamy number. Triglycerides: 254
Hard to improve on that framing.
What matters is the trend. Two data points a trend do not make. Monitor it over time.
IMHO total cholesterol is WAY over-rated as a measure of health. As you just learned you have to look at the components. I have not eyeballed the data in a number of years now but I believe the correlation of high HDL (which you have) with lower risk of heart attack is as strong as the correlation of high LDL (which you do not have) with higher risk of heart attack.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
I'm more interested in why Trent thinks that the numbers are awesome, but Wing's Dr. sounds like he was pretty much "bleah" about it.
Wing...new doctor?
Jeff
I'm more interested in why Trent thinks that the numbers are awesome, but Wing's Dr. sounds like he was pretty much "bleah" about it. Wing...new doctor?
FWIW I was once called back into a medical office at a major university with a well-renowned medical school because they seemed concerned by my high HDL (in the 80s) and wanted to question me on why it could be that high. Not once was it mentioned that it could be a good thing.
Simple. The LDL is below the most aggressive recommendation and the HDL is above the most aggressive recommendation. Dude. Awesome. Dreamy.
The lab report and doc's note I got back ONLY highlighted the issue with the triglyceride level, so I looked at the whole thing in a negative light. Nothing positive was said about the HDL/LDL numbers. With the way you had just explained it, I am reminded of a manager I once worked for. He once told me this during my annual performance review:
"Wing, if I never ever talk to you, it means you are doing a great job!"
That was pretty much the entirety of our conversation...