My blood test before starting primal...
Following on from the Taubes blood test and John's "My Lab Results" thread, here are my most recent blood test results. I really don't know what these numbers mean or if they are good or bad. Perhaps you guys will give me your opinions. This was after a CW diet high in protein, moderate in fats and carbs, relatively low in saturated fats.
Glucose: 4.8 mmol/L
TSH: 1.61 mU/L
Total PSA: 0.53 ug/L
Cholesterol: 4.5 mmol/L
Triglycerides: 0.8 mmol/L
HDL Cholesterol: 1.1 mmol/L
LDL Cholesterol: 3.0 mmol/L
I got everything tested, so if there's something else important, let me know.
Now - what the hell do these numbers mean?
(edit: the title probably should say "paleo". I don't really know what "primal" is, but I'm guessing it's the same sh-t).
Okay, I'll translate this into "American" in the hope of getting some more replies/info:
Glucose: 86 mg/dL
Cholesterol: 174 mg/dL
HDL Cholesterol: 42.5 mg/dL
LDL Cholesterol: 116 mg/dL
Triglycerides: 70.8 mg/dL
Total PSA: ?
I can add other things (like I said, I got everything tested if they're important).
Cholesterol: 174 mg/dl
BTW, I'm 6'0" and 205lbs (93kg).
Last edited by captaineight; 04-19-2011 at 11:26 PM.
Reason: add weight & height
Also, here's a picture of me this morning. I have pants on, just censored a little bit for modesty.
I found Griffs cholesterol primer thread very helpful. Off the top of my head while the overall cholesterol figure looks ok, your trigs look high and your HDL looks low. I'm pretty sure you should be looking for higher HDL and lower trigs??? (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong )
The glucose thing I'm not sure about, I think it is supposed to be under 100? so appears good? but stabby is saying if you are eating low carb and have something that high then its not that good (I think?)
Anyway I'm sure someone with more brain cells than I (clearly someone that doesnt drink wine ) will chime in. but the cholesterol post by Griff I did find really helpful.
Assume these tests were done fasted?
Ok, I will bite.
Personally it all looks good.
Glucose is mid-lower end of normal fasting range.
Total cholesterol is less than 200 so considered good by CW.
HDL is above 39 so you get the benefit of good HDL according to CW.
LDL should be less than 150 again a good value according to CW. Its probably a calculated value rather than truly measured, in other words standard tests for cholesterol normally don't directly measure LDL, they guess it from other values. So you don't know whether you have healthy pattern A or unhealthy pattern B. Given your low trigs and slightly elevated HDL you are probably in between or edging into healthy pattern A.
Trigs are good, they are less than 100.
Don't really know how to read the other stuff.
According to Malcom Kendrick, author of The Great Cholesterol Con, your total cholesterol is smack in the middle of the range that has highest life expectancy for a male. According to various large studies, males with lower or higher values than yours have a higher statistical chance of having heart disease. Though he and others go on to say its not really the cholesterol anyway thats at cause (nor saturated fats - countries with lower consumption of saturated fats have higher incidence of heart disease and vice versa, but thats getting off topic...)
So depending on who you listen to, your cholesterol is healthy but could improve (CW), or is the healthiest possible for a Male, or just doesn't really matter.
Originally Posted by captaineight
Now, this is what I think has rubbed a few MDA regulars up the wrong way captaineight, though I could be wrong. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a dig at you, I'm just trying to shed some light on some of the reactions you've been getting on here as I see it.
Originally Posted by captaineight
You haven't read the primal blueprint, have only been "primal" for a couple of weeks but you don't actually know what "primal" is and don't understand what your own cholesterol results mean. However, a number of you're posts are coming across very much as though you know better than others who have spent years researching and educating themselves and others on this topic(s). That's not to say that you don't have a right to your own opinion, of course you do. I guess that I'd just be tempering my opinions with a little more regard to the environment I was raising them. If that make any sense? :-)
Thankyou very much for taking the time to explain that. I really appreciate it. However, you last sentence has left me quite confused.
I guess it's one of those things where I have to investigate the (proper) scientific literature myself and make up my own mind.
As far as "I'll bite" goes, I'm not looking for "bites". Last night John challenged any poster who questions Taubes to post their own blood test results and a full-body picture. I thought that was a reasonable request, since I'm probably one of Taubes' most vocal skeptics on this forum. I think it's totally reasonable that, if I'm going to express opinions on health and nutrition, I should be a bit transparent about myself (and so should everyone else who expressed opinions one way or the other, for that matter).
As a bonus, I thought it would also provide a great "starting point" to compare my progress after a couple of months on the paleolithic diet. Also, of course, I get to read the interesting and informative opinions of other posters who are interested in this stuff, such as yourself. Thanks again.
Last edited by captaineight; 04-19-2011 at 11:07 PM.
That sort of makes sense. The way it doesn't make sense is in the fact that I've never actually criticized the paleolithic diet, and I've never professed any strong opinion either way on cholesterol or saturated fats. The things I have questioned, I've been very specific about and provided quotes and detailed reasoning.
I would also add that I've been into dieting, fitness, nurtition and weights-training for almost a decade (doesn't show, I know! ) The point being it would be erronous to assume that I'm some kind of Johny-come-lately on the fitness/nutrition/exercise scene.
Thanks for your reply and your calm and rational responses.
I think what wildwabbit meant is that it depends on whether you believe the CW line that high cholesterol is bad full stop, only high pattern B LDL particles are bad, or cholesterol doesn't matter at all as there's no proven correalation between it and heart disease. There are different schools of thought and depending on which you subscribe to your view of your results will vary.
Originally Posted by captaineight
Captain, personally you are thought provoking about half the time, but the other half of the time you are just provoking
I know it sounds like a broken record, but you should really read Taubes' GCBC. The book is highly dense review of research studies with a huge references/citations section afterwards, so basically anyone can fact check Gary's sources to the nth degree. Probably people are frustrated because few people here have performed the scope of the research that Gary has done to be able to simplify and elaborate to someone who questions it.
Thats why people tell you to just read the book. Its not a thin thing where he says his hypotheses without support/references, but rather the opposite.
You are taking up alot of time asking people to essentially bring into the forums the dense support that already exists in book form, and no one is really going to be able to do that. People understand good logic when they read it but that rarely translates into (for any subject) the ability to adequately defend something regardless of topic or merit. So, just go buy the book. In USA its only $11 or so from Amazon.
I haven't responded to your lengthy post to our other discussion because I would essentially be doing what I described above and I haven't had time today. Its still on my agenda but really it would be easier for most if you bought the book