Those of you, who know what you’re talking about, please give me your feedback. I already googled and the facts seem to range a bit. I’m 6’4 and 240 lbs, quite solid.
Cholesterol, Total: 201
LDL/HDL Ratio: 2.6
Triglycerides: 135
HDL Cholesterol 48
VLDL Cholesterol Calc 27
LDL Cholesterol Cacl 126
As far as I can tell, it’s the ratio that matters the most and my ratio seems to be pretty good, right? The 201 total level is what’s puzzling me a bit.
Isn’t anything over 200 bad?
Why don’t you eat a steak and see if your heart pops.
[quote]Universl wrote:
Those of you, who know what you’re talking about, please give me your feedback. I already googled and the facts seem to range a bit. I’m 6’4 and 240 lbs, quite solid.
Cholesterol, Total: 201
LDL/HDL Ratio: 2.6
[/quote]
Good.
This looks fine, below the normal upper-end limit of 160mg/dl. Can also be elevated if you were not tested in a fasted state.
HDL Cholesterol 48
[/quote]
This looks good, you want it to be 35 or higher.
This could be better but you are still under the 30 mark, which is the goal to be considered low-risk. VLDL is one to definitely watch out for.
This looks good as well, as the goal is below 130.
[quote]
As far as I can tell, it’s the ratio that matters the most and my ratio seems to be pretty good, right? The 201 total level is what’s puzzling me a bit.[/quote]
Overall this looks pretty good. Congrats.
[quote]piramyds wrote:
Why don’t you eat a steak and see if your heart pops. [/quote]
Why don’t you shut the fuck up and stop polluting threads with the rancid garbage that flows forth from your keyboard?
If you really need something useless to worry about go ahead.
I give your cholesterol an E for effort!
quite solid? and give you a d for Derrrr!
Damn, things seem to be have changed a bit. There used to be tons of expert posting on this site.
[quote]Universl wrote:
Damn, things seem to be have changed a bit. There used to be tons of expert posting on this site.[/quote]
Do a search for cholesterol. This has been mulled over in great detail many times. In short, in otherwise active healthy individuals cholesterol means practically nothing.
[quote]Universl wrote:
Damn, things seem to be have changed a bit. There used to be tons of expert posting on this site.[/quote]
While not claiming to be an expert, I did reply to this Sunday, mid-day. However, for some reason, my posts sometimes do not show up until 1-2 days later, after the other posts have been submitted. Its funny, though, that when they do show up, they are inserted into the correct order they should appear. I have no idea what the problem is.
T-Nation hates me ;-(
[quote]Universl wrote:
Those of you, who know what you’re talking about, please give me your feedback. I already googled and the facts seem to range a bit. I’m 6’4 and 240 lbs, quite solid.
Cholesterol, Total: 201
LDL/HDL Ratio: 2.6
Triglycerides: 135
HDL Cholesterol 48
VLDL Cholesterol Calc 27
LDL Cholesterol Cacl 126
As far as I can tell, it’s the ratio that matters the most and my ratio seems to be pretty good, right? The 201 total level is what’s puzzling me a bit.[/quote]
Not really an expert, but IMO, the total level is OK - I think the accepted ‘high’ keeps getting reduced to account for the fact it has no/little correlation with developing CHD and the pharma companies want to sell more STATIN’s.
However, LDL over 100 is not great. Again LDL levels can be overemphasized (as LDL is mistakenly called ‘bad’), but LDL/HDL of over 2 is not really good.
Now triglycerides are a much better indication of potential for CHD than total cholesterol. Over 100 is not great.
So, I would be much less concerned about total cholesterol and try to reduce LDL and especially triglycerides.
[quote]NewDamage wrote:
Universl wrote:
Those of you, who know what you’re talking about, please give me your feedback. I already googled and the facts seem to range a bit. I’m 6’4 and 240 lbs, quite solid.
Cholesterol, Total: 201
LDL/HDL Ratio: 2.6
Good.
Triglycerides: 135
This looks fine, below the normal upper-end limit of 160mg/dl. Can also be elevated if you were not tested in a fasted state.
HDL Cholesterol 48
This looks good, you want it to be 35 or higher.
VLDL Cholesterol Calc 27
This could be better but you are still under the 30 mark, which is the goal to be considered low-risk. VLDL is one to definitely watch out for.
LDL Cholesterol Cacl 126
This looks good as well, as the goal is below 130.
As far as I can tell, it’s the ratio that matters the most and my ratio seems to be pretty good, right? The 201 total level is what’s puzzling me a bit.
Overall this looks pretty good. Congrats.
[/quote]
NewDamage, you are a scholar and a gentleman. Glad to see there still are people like yourself making this place worthwhile. I appreciate the information and feedback. I just read your PM as well. I’m going to be adding some fish oils to my diet, as per your advice.
Thanks again.
triglycerides, are they just a function of body fat?
Dave Tate’s seemed to improve a lot on the Berardi diet, but i’m not sure if ordinary mortals react the same
Copied and pasted from another thread:
Tiribulus wrote:
100 years from now (too bad it couldn’t be sooner) medical texts will read “it was once thought that dietary cholesterol was a cause of coronary artery disease” as the class chuckles at our ignorance.
BTW for anybody who cares, what is commonly called “cholesterol” isn’t even cholesterol at all. They are lipoproteins which are transports for cholesterol which are sterols which are compounds of steroids and alcohol. Furthermore there is no such thing as good and bad cholesterol, which are again actually lipoproteins, in otherwise healthy individuals.
They are essential to bodily function on many levels. There are unhealthy people for whom this whole topic may have some relevance, but the deleterious effects of so called cholesterol are a symptom for these people and not the actual cause.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Copied and pasted from another thread:
Tiribulus wrote:
100 years from now (too bad it couldn’t be sooner) medical texts will read “it was once thought that dietary cholesterol was a cause of coronary artery disease” as the class chuckles at our ignorance.
BTW for anybody who cares, what is commonly called “cholesterol” isn’t even cholesterol at all. They are lipoproteins which are transports for cholesterol which are sterols which are compounds of steroids and alcohol. Furthermore there is no such thing as good and bad cholesterol, which are again actually lipoproteins, in otherwise healthy individuals.
They are essential to bodily function on many levels. There are unhealthy people for whom this whole topic may have some relevance, but the deleterious effects of so called cholesterol are a symptom for these people and not the actual cause. [/quote]
And what’s more, there have been many studies which have shown a negative correlation between cholesterol and all-cause mortality: that’s right, people with low cholesterol have been shown to have an increased risk of heart disease, cancer, and stroke in several studies. But we don’t hear about those studies, do we?
Well, we actually do hear about those studies, but the results are just intentionally misrepresented…
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Copied and pasted from another thread:
Tiribulus wrote:
100 years from now (too bad it couldn’t be sooner) medical texts will read “it was once thought that dietary cholesterol was a cause of coronary artery disease” as the class chuckles at our ignorance.
BTW for anybody who cares, what is commonly called “cholesterol” isn’t even cholesterol at all. They are lipoproteins which are transports for cholesterol which are sterols which are compounds of steroids and alcohol. Furthermore there is no such thing as good and bad cholesterol, which are again actually lipoproteins, in otherwise healthy individuals.
They are essential to bodily function on many levels. There are unhealthy people for whom this whole topic may have some relevance, but the deleterious effects of so called cholesterol are a symptom for these people and not the actual cause.
And what’s more, there have been many studies which have shown a negative correlation between cholesterol and all-cause mortality: that’s right, people with low cholesterol have been shown to have an increased risk of heart disease, cancer, and stroke in several studies. But we don’t hear about those studies, do we?
Well, we actually do hear about those studies, but the results are just intentionally misrepresented…[/quote]
I’m in the process of reading “Good Calorie, Bad Calorie” by Taubes right now, he’s addressing this very thing. the book is very good so far, i’d highly recommend it
The mainstream "health"care industry is just plain hazardous to your health. It’s getting to the point where doing the opposite of what those vultures recommend is the best course for health and well being. If they had their way we’d all be parading back and forth from the operating room to the pharmacy.
[quote]Universl wrote:
Damn, things seem to be have changed a bit. There used to be tons of expert posting on this site.[/quote]
Have you tried talking to…wait for it…your doctor? Since he is probably the one who prescribed the bloodwork, he is probably the best person to “rate” it for you.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The mainstream "health"care industry is just plain hazardous to your health. It’s getting to the point where doing the opposite of what those vultures recommend is the best course for health and well being. If they had their way we’d all be parading back and forth from the operating room to the pharmacy.[/quote]
This statement is full of so many fallacies that I don’t know where to begin.