• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Cholesterol query - is this bad or okay?

Bluetit1802 said:
I don't believe they do these routinely on the NHS but you may find some private ones. It is said that if your trigs are low, your LDL will have many more large fluffy particles and less of the nasty little hard ones.
Click to expand...

Prof. Sikaris says re fluffies that no research is being done into intermediate cholesterol so that it is the sdLDL and trigs that are the ones he's watching.
 
Guzzler said:
Prof. Sikaris says re fluffies that no research is being done into intermediate cholesterol so that it is the sdLDL and trigs that are the ones he's watching.
Click to expand...

Yes, those seem to be the baddies from what I read. I'm sure you must be able to get them measured privately if not via the NHS. My trigs are low, and always have been for some reason, and my HDL is high, plus ideal ratios, so I don't worry too much about my LDL level.
 
DCUKMod said:
That's also where the link I posted took me. I have to say, when I plugged my own data in I can't recall the question about RA before.
Click to expand...

It took me to the Q-Risk 2 page. My link is to the Q-risk 3 page. They aren't exactly the same, and when someone on a different thread noticed some of the ratio calculations were wrongly converted from the American measurements to the UK ones they contacted Hugh from Hughcalc . He agreed and amended them. This was only a couple of days ago. I wish I could remember the thread!
 
Guzzler said:
Does anyone know if labs here in the UK measure sdLDL alongside Trigs separately? These are, Im led to believe, the little beggars that attach themselves to plaques and they injure other cholesteric bodies.

Edited to add.
Click to expand...
Testing for particle size is probably something you could get (at a price) but I wouldn't expect to see it on the NHS any time soon.
There's no need to be disappointed since triglycerides level is the best indication to LDL particle size.
"There is an inverse correlation between blood levels of triglycerides and LDL particle size. Thus, the higher your triglycerides, the greater the number of small LDL particles. Conversely, the lower your triglycerides, the higher the number of large, fluffy LDL particles. "
https://www.docsopinion.com/health-and-nutrition/lipids/ldl-p/

Interestingly modern opinion on lipid levels sees the level of trigs and the trigs/HDL ratio as more important, and betterat predicting heart disease than LDL levels.
In the documentary Cereal Killers the Irish reporter is summoned back to a hospital because of his high LDL and Total. When they tested it was all found to be large particles.
Geoff
 
Bluetit1802 said:
It took me to the Q-Risk 2 page. My link is to the Q-risk 3 page. They aren't exactly the same, and when someone on a different thread noticed some of the ratio calculations were wrongly converted from the American measurements to the UK ones they contacted Hugh from Hughcalc . He agreed and amended them. This was only a couple of days ago. I wish I could remember the thread!
Click to expand...
Here you go!
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/thr...rol-converter-calculator.127249/#post-1577106
 
Who knows - I doubt much of medical science including that related to cholesterol - there will be those who think they are in a good place, but are they, and those that think they are not, but are they?
 
Bluetit1802 said:
It took me to the Q-Risk 2 page. My link is to the Q-risk 3 page. They aren't exactly the same, and when someone on a different thread noticed some of the ratio calculations were wrongly converted from the American measurements to the UK ones they contacted Hugh from Hughcalc . He agreed and amended them. This was only a couple of days ago. I wish I could remember the thread!
Click to expand...

Ah, apologies, @Bluetit1802 . I Googled "qrisk 2017" and got there, but I've just tied that again and got the 2 variant.

Oh well. One of life's mysteries, but I won't derail the thread any further.

Sorry Snapsy.
 
Robkww said:
Who knows - I doubt much of medical science including that related to cholesterol - there will be those who think they are in a good place, but are they, and those that think they are not, but are they?
Click to expand...

... and there are those that want medical science to prove they are in a good place, so discard research that says they aren't.
 
I don't worry about cholesterol but I do want to understand the basics, knowledge is power. Having been texted yet again yesterday to make an appt with the gp to discuss the results of my last count I mean to be able to counter any argument he puts to me.
This question of GPs (or practices) being paid to get people thought to be at risk onto statins, true or false? I've read on the forum yae and nae.
 
Guzzler said:
I don't worry about cholesterol but I do want to understand the basics, knowledge is power. Having been texted yet again yesterday to make an appt with the gp to discuss the results of my last count I mean to be able to counter any argument he puts to me.
This question of GPs (or practices) being paid to get people thought to be at risk onto statins, true or false? I've read on the forum yae and nae.
Click to expand...
They don't get paid for prescribing a statin directly. One of the QOF targets is a certain percentage of patients with diabetes having a total cholesterol of less than 5. And they are incentivised to meet QOF targets. So they get paid to actively manage cholesterol levels which usually means with statins but could also mean lifestyle advice etc.
 
Lally123 said:
They don't get paid for prescribing a statin directly. One of the QOF targets is a certain percentage of patients with diabetes having a total cholesterol of less than 5. And they are incentivised to meet QOF targets. So they get paid to actively manage cholesterol levels which usually means with statins but could also mean lifestyle advice etc.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I will use the word incentivised when I next see the gp. I will also ask why, when no breakdown of the tc was shown in my results, he can then mither me about blummin statins. Again!
 
librarising said:
Testing for particle size is probably something you could get (at a price) but I wouldn't expect to see it on the NHS any time soon.
There's no need to be disappointed since triglycerides level is the best indication to LDL particle size.
"There is an inverse correlation between blood levels of triglycerides and LDL particle size. Thus, the higher your triglycerides, the greater the number of small LDL particles. Conversely, the lower your triglycerides, the higher the number of large, fluffy LDL particles. "
https://www.docsopinion.com/health-and-nutrition/lipids/ldl-p/

Interestingly modern opinion on lipid levels sees the level of trigs and the trigs/HDL ratio as more important, and betterat predicting heart disease than LDL levels.
In the documentary Cereal Killers the Irish reporter is summoned back to a hospital because of his high LDL and Total. When they tested it was all found to be large particles.
Geoff
Click to expand...
@Guzzler Here's a very useful article on trigs/HDL ratio.
care.diabetesjournals.org/content/diacare/23/11/1679.full.pdf
You'll see from the Conclusions that those with the highest trigs/HDL ratio had SIXTEEN TIMES the risk of myocardial infarction (= heart attack)
Geoff
 
Back
Top