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

Low triglycerides

LucySW said:
I've never heard of it being a problem having too low triglycerides. Are you sure it really is a problem? Serious googling called for, I think.
Click to expand...

Yes, same as BG. Too low is bad.
 
LucySW said:
I've never heard of it being a problem having too low triglycerides. Are you sure it really is a problem? Serious googling called for, I think.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is a problem, just shocked to find the word "abnormal", so thought I would ask others. Malnutrition and Thyroid problems can cause this from my research today.

Thank you @Brunneria so from this I'm only just under. I will be tested again in 6 months.

I'm learning all the time. Thanks to all for their input.
 

I don't think it's seriously low, considering your lifestyle/diet but it's worth speaking to your doctor if you have any doubts.
 
Hiitsme said:
Just had my test results back. HbA1c is 33 again so happy with that.
But my triglyceride 0.49 is marked as abnormal. Range 0.80-2.00. Doctor did not mention it and only found out when I went though all the results. Does anyone understand this?
Click to expand...
BTW that range for trigs is wrong: they should be below 1.0. 2.0 is very high. A good trig level is 0.5, 0.6. I've had 0.5 numerous times and it was considered excellent.

I don't think you should be fazed: read some more.

This source http://www.livestrong.com/article/308824-very-low-triglyceride-level/ defines very low trigs as less than 35mg/dl, which converts to 0.4 mmol/L.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SunnyExpat said:
I don't think it's seriously low, considering your lifestyle/diet but it's worth speaking to your doctor if you have any doubts.
Click to expand...

Thanks @SunnyExpat
My doctor did not tell me about my trigs, I only found out going through all the pages of the printouts he had given me when I got home and saw the word abnormal so wanted to understand. But I am now starting to understand what he was saying to me. I've been referred for a bone scan and on the form it says low BMI. My BMI is 19.6 so towards the lower end of normal. I've also been referred to a dietician as he was saying I could do with more ideas on what to eat. Both these would fit in with being malnourished. I will wait until I see the dietician who will probably tell me to ear more carbs, but I would like to know if my diet is lacking in any essential nutrients. I am trying out a few more carbs but in a measured and controlled way and don't want to go back to really high blood sugars. I know my doctor is concerned about my weight but I have reassured him that if I lose any further weight I will be back to him. I think at the moment my only concern is if my body is not absorbing essential nutrients.
 
Thanks @LucySW
This was on the lab report to my doctor and is the first I had seen with these figures, hence me starting this thread. I'm fairly sure the last one only said under 1.7. I would assume now that I don't have a fatty liver (was never tested for it) and hopefully more able to keep my blood sugars under control.
 
I always thought the lower the better with trigs too. I think the averages are based on people eating more carbs, I thought high Trigs were caused by high carb diet. My trigs certainly went down a lot when I converted to Low Carb High Fat. Congratulations on the results, I wouldn't be overly concerned, just ask next time you go for a 'normal' appointment.
 
Thanks @AtkinsMo
I'm hoping it will be 6 months before I next see my doctor when I'm due to have another set of blood tests, I think I'm pleased with the results.
 

Trigs are essential, and taken from ingested fat. Your body will also manufacture them from carbs. Cut either by enough, and your trigs may go down. Overeat either and your trigs may rise.
 
Sorry, I know this is an old thread, but I just hit it on google when searching for standard trig levels.

Assuming someone fasted before the blood test and had a long walk (for example) a short time before the test, I can see how someone who is "fat adapted" (due to low carb) could get a very low trig level. (I think a very low level can also be got by greatly increasing fat intake for a few days before the test, then fasting, as cells will have enough trigs in them, hence blood trig levels could be low.)
 
I had fasted before the blood test and probably walked to the surgery. I was not doing very low carb, just restricting carbs that my body couldn't cope with. I did end up being sent to the dietitian who was very happy with my diet, I even checked with her that as most of my carbs came from veg and she said that was fine. No suggestion from her to eat carbs with every meal, all she suggested was not to be afraid of trying out different foods. My latest trigs over a year ago was 0.51 so slightly higher.
 


I have never heard of trigs being too low before.
Mine have been 0.5 on many tests, and also on my lab reports the standard is 0 to 1.7 (female) so females can go down to 0 and still be "normal"
 
@Bluetit1802
That was why I started this thread as before I think it just said under 1.7 and the next time it was flagged as low. I'm still alive so don't think it was anything to worry about. I've had 2 tests since and neither of those were flagged.
 
Hiitsme said:
@Bluetit1802
That was why I started this thread as before I think it just said under 1.7 and the next time it was flagged as low. I'm still alive so don't think it was anything to worry about. I've had 2 tests since and neither of those were flagged.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is nothing to worry about. In fact I would be throwing a party! My trigs have hovered between 0.5 to 0.7 for 4 years, 2 or 3 tests a year. I just checked again on my on-line access and the standard is definitely 0 to 1.9. (I said 1.7 before, but it is 1.9)
 
Bluetit1802 said:
I have never heard of trigs being too low before.
Click to expand...

trigs can be too low, but I think you will have to have someone in a hospital bed for a day so that they are very well rested before a blood tests would give a meaningful result! Otherwise, the blood test is just showing that our bodies are able to burn fat while we walk to the doctor.

The lab "normal" ranges that are quoted on the lab reports are just the ranges that about 95% of people are within, they are not a statement about what is safe.
 
ringi said:
The lab "normal" ranges that are quoted on the lab reports are just the ranges that about 95% of people are within, they are not a statement about what is safe.
Click to expand...

Therefore it must be "normal" to have zero trigs?
 
From my test results just over a year ago that I now have online

Name Result Normal range
Serum triglycerides 0.51 mmol/L
0.8 - 2mmol/L

So from this lab it would seem as if "normal" is 0.8 - 2. Although it had a star against it no one queried it. I don't think I want to try to get my trigs down any lower.
 
ringi said:
No, there is a lower limit that is a long way above zero of what most labs can measure.
Click to expand...

Do you know that, or is that a sweeping statement?

As I said earlier, my trigs have been 0.5, 0.6, 0.7 's for years. Average 0.63. Absolutely no asterisks.

Almost every site I have found says Trigs should be <1.7 in other words, zero is acceptable.

These are just 2 I found very quickly (being careful to find UK sites as the Americans differ)
https://heartuk.org.uk/health-and-high-cholesterol/triglycerides/triglyceride-faqs
https://www.webmd.boots.com/cholesterol-management/guide/cholesterol-numbers
 
Yes, I do know it is a fact, it is a fact about all lab equipment!

A true reading of 0 would be acted on by doctors if someone was very ill, but I expect they would already be in an ICU bed! For the rest of us, we just need to except that any low (or zero) trig leg result is good as if we could get to the GP to have the test done.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…