a cholestorial level of 5.3 a problem?

[derekrach]

is a cholestorial level of 5.3 something a type 2 diabetic should realy worry about?

 

[hanadr]

probably not, but "THEY" prefer it lower.
Hana

 

[noblehead]

Normal total cholesterol levels should be less than 5, but according to the following article those at risk of heart disease etc, which having diabetes we are, should aim to keep their level below 4:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_he ... rol1.shtml


Here is a excellent site that gives good advice on keeping cholesterol levels low:

http://www.patient.co.uk/health/Cholesterol.htm

Nigel

 

[derekrach]

That is a very useful site. Thanks very much. I am so surprised that my GP/Diabetic Nurse have not pointed me to it during the two years since I developed the disease.

 

[murray45]

is a cholestorial level of 5.3 something a type 2 diabetic should realy worry about?

Have a read of this it will open your eyes "The Great Cholesterol Con by Dr Malcolm Kendrick"

 

[cugila]

is a cholestorial level of 5.3 something a type 2 diabetic should realy worry about?

Have a read of this it will open your eyes "The Great Cholesterol Con by Dr Malcolm Kendrick"

Yes, read it. It is aptly titled I think, definitely a Con ! Most of the Medical Profession think the guy is a crank ! I think I would go along with that. Mind you I have had a Heart Op so I prefer to keep my Cholesterol numbers lower thank you. In my opinion a far more healthy way to stay alive a lot longer. I suppose you pays your money and you make your choice. I have read both sides of the argument and my eyes were WIDE open. :wink:

Mr Kendrick.......quack, quack......anybody seen the duck ? :twisted:

Ken

 

[Etty]

Cugila, how do you know that most of the medical profession think Kendrick is a quack?

 

[cugila]

Cugila, how do you know that most of the medical profession think Kendrick is a quack?

Do some research and you will find all the information you want. It's common knowledgae. You could also ask your own Specialists if you are wanting more information.

 

[Dillinger]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20470020

Quoted from the abstract - "Conclusions. Participants with low serum total cholesterol seem to have a lower survival rate than participants with an elevated cholesterol level, irrespective of concomitant diseases or health status."

My italics.

 

[Patch]

Well I'll be.

It's interesting that the results are based on TOTAL Cholesterol. Wonder what the lipid profile (HDL/LDL) is for those with high S-TC?

I've been told for a couple of years that I have high cholesterol (6). Last time I had a blood test I asked that I get a full lipid profile. Came back as HDL: 4 and LDL: 2.

I can live with that all day long!

 

[daisy1]

Does that mean that my total cholesterol of 8.4 is good? Doc didn't think I needed more medication than I already take. (HDL 2.3, LDL 4.4.)

 

[Patch]

Looks to me like your TC is 6.7 (2.3 + 4.4).

Ideally, your HDL should be higher than your LDL, though...

 

[daisy1]

I don't understand as that's what the printed report said. Could they have made a mistake in the total?
The Doc was happy with my HDL and LDL figures.

 

[sugarless sue]

Daisy, that study was done on over 75 year olds.

The elderly have different metabolic rates etc to younger people so I'm afraid I will still be going with the 'main stream' advice at least till I get to 75.

 

[daisy1]

OK. Thanks Sue. I'm not 75 yet either 8)

 

[cugila]

Does that mean that my total cholesterol of 8.4 is good? Doc didn't think I needed more medication than I already take. (HDL 2.3, LDL 4.4.)

To calculate your total cholesterol you add your LDL and HDL levels together, then divide your triglyceride level by 5 and add that result to the sum of your HDL and LDL cholesterol levels.

This final sum represents your total cholesterol level.

So, as we do not have your Triglyceride level we cannot tell you that your TC level is incorrect as the method shown by Patch is also incorrect. It missed out the last part of the calculation which makes a big difference. :shock:

Ken

 

[daisy1]

According to my calculations that makes 7. ( trigs were 1.61) So the lab got it wrong and made it look far worse than it actually was. Still too high though :shock:

 

[cugila]

According to my calculations that makes 7. ( trigs were 1.61) So the lab got it wrong and made it look far worse than it actually was. Still too high though :shock:

Yes....we make it 7.022. Was this on a print out or just written down somewhere ? There is a definite discrepancy which you might need to query. Maybe somebody rounded the numbers up or down ? Odd.

Ken

 

[Patch]

To calculate your total cholesterol you add your LDL and HDL levels together, then divide your triglyceride level by 5 and add that result to the sum of your HDL and LDL cholesterol levels.

That's a new one on me. Got me a little confused. I'm sure that last time my total cholesterol was 6, with an LDL reading of 2. I guessed that the difference between 6 and my LDL was my HDL level - but using your above formula, it seems that if my total cholesterol was 6, and my LDL was 2, that makes my HDL 2 aswell (becasuse I know that my Trigs are at 10 presently, and 10/5=2.)

So, LDl: 2, HDL: 2, Trigs: 10(/5) = Total Cholesterol 6.

 

[cugila]

Sorry Patch.
Those are the calculations used by the Lab's, available on the net as well. I have a feeling it also makes a slight difference as to how many decimal places they use as well. Sometimes life isn't always so simple.
Daisy is in Switzerland.

Ken