As a GP, I now no longer recommend Fasting blood tests, unless in specific circumstances, mainly focused around an abnormally raised Triglyceride result on a Non-fasted blood test.
Historically, we measured fasting glucose for diagnosis, (which is still very relevant for certain conditions, such as a possible diabetes in pregnancy...) however now we use HbA1c, which is far more useful a marker of control and diagnosis.
In fact a Non-fasted cholesterol, both LDL and HDL is much more useful, as it gives a picture of 'Dynamic' profile, i.e. real world, whereas fasted actually gives quite a false impression which doesn't really help tailor advice and discussion and whether a statin dose might be adjusted...
Also, Non-fasting blood tests are much more positive for patients and much easier to schedule into a working day and a busy GP phlebotomy appointments list...
I hope that this helps.
The change from Fasting to Non-fasting is only starting to occur in the last few years, so there will remain quite a lot of variation across surgeries...
The only thing to add, is that phlebotomists have been known to turn away patients who have Fasted on the blood form, but haven't fasted.
Most interesting, thank you
@mutter for posting in and welcome to the forum.
a few questions arise out of some of your statement.
but please don't think me rude and aiming this at you personally,
The principle involved in the ABNORMALLY RAISED elements that make non fasting a better choice, can you expand as to what they might be, as in cause and why THEN a fasted test makes good sense. ?
A few have raised the issue that when going for tests, the answer has been they are OK.
only when they have investigated the scoring has the HBA1c came back as less then ok, 48 - 42
my concern would be the non fasted tests might give an unclear picture in our case ( as diabetics)
where the information is given as OK, when on investigation it would be clear it's not.
Perhaps something that might not be so clear in the muddier waters of a Non fasting test.
For me the Blood tests have proved invaluable in terms of me understanding exactly where i am metabolically.
Nerdy perhaps, but i do dissect the scoring i am able to understand, to better comprehend how well and in what direction i have or need to have any of those markers move for better health outcomes.
The reason i baulk at a non fasted test is twofold.
One is old data seems to indicate that Type 2 are more susceptible to hearts attacks, strokes etc
i am coming to the idea that this is CAUSED* by the old style instruction to carry on eating certain foods, which for T2D is harmful, While the advise to eat IN reduced measures as in Eatwell, the truth is that they are actively encouraging countless patients to continue taking excess amounts of the very thing that IS impairing their health.
(sources all T2D data, last 30 years..Progressive disease, indeed)
(*something i hope and believe will be verified by this generation of T2's Bucking the idea of eating for a progressive illness, and trying LCHF instead or the many version most on here currently use to manage the illness successfully)
I'd worry that that datas interpretation is then laid over the non fasting blood test, resulting in incorrect scores and /or advise
And two,
As for data reflecting a real world scenario, i would agree for most, but for me personally right now,
i am more concerned about what the effects are on me WITHOUT the background impact any excess foods, etc i might of had, so would at the moment prefer that clean slate, for my tests.
Happy to hear clear evidence why fasting is not a good idea or that Non fasting results ARE much clearer, particularly when related to Diabetes, being already present in patients.
Willing to change my opinions, and stand corrected.
until then i'll stick with Fasting.
Kind regards.
