AngelaNRichard
10-15-2003, 12:25 PM
Why is non-fasting results not accurate?
------------------
Angela(24) and Richard(30)
November 2001 Blood Test Results:
Total- 222
HDL- 80
LDL- 136
Triglyerides- 32
Blood Sugar- 73
Next Check-up on Oct 14th, 2003 :)
------------------
Angela(24) and Richard(30)
November 2001 Blood Test Results:
Total- 222
HDL- 80
LDL- 136
Triglyerides- 32
Blood Sugar- 73
Next Check-up on Oct 14th, 2003 :)
Sponsor
ARIZONA73
10-15-2003, 11:23 PM
Well, for one thing, your triglycerides and blood sugar readings could fluctuate wildly, providing largely inaccurate test results. I'm not sure about the cholesterol readings, but I think fasting would reveal a far better baseline result overall.
zip2play
10-16-2003, 10:21 AM
Angela,
As Arizona said, triglycderides fluctuate a lot depending on the last foods eaten and being digested.
UNFORTUNATELY, triglycerides are also used to compute some cholesterol numbers rather than directly measure them.
So if triglycerides are inaccurate, the whole picture is askew!
I think in a couple years all numbers will be directly measured and cholesterol results will be independent of the fast.
[This message has been edited by zip2play (edited 10-16-2003).]
As Arizona said, triglycderides fluctuate a lot depending on the last foods eaten and being digested.
UNFORTUNATELY, triglycerides are also used to compute some cholesterol numbers rather than directly measure them.
So if triglycerides are inaccurate, the whole picture is askew!
I think in a couple years all numbers will be directly measured and cholesterol results will be independent of the fast.
[This message has been edited by zip2play (edited 10-16-2003).]
pcovers
10-16-2003, 05:00 PM
I have found that, after many many lipid tests, my Total and HDL show no discernable difference whether I have fasted or not. I have had a breakfast of toast, tea, juice and egg and within hours taken a TC and HDL and found them to be unaffected by what I have eaten.
However, as has been stated, trigs, and thus LDL as well, are affected by what you have recently eaten. Fasting would have an impact on these two results.
Any doctor that says your TC or HDL will be significanlty affected by not fasting would need to show me the proof of this. I don't think it is out there.
However, as has been stated, trigs, and thus LDL as well, are affected by what you have recently eaten. Fasting would have an impact on these two results.
Any doctor that says your TC or HDL will be significanlty affected by not fasting would need to show me the proof of this. I don't think it is out there.
AngelaNRichard
10-17-2003, 10:01 AM
Well,
I have proof that the total cholesterol (non fasting & fasting) are different....
When I had my non fast blood test in Nov 2001, my TC was 196.... when I had my fasting blood test in Nov 2001, my TC was 222. So, in my case, the #'s changed by 20 something points!!
------------------
Angela(24) and Richard(30)
November 2001 Blood Test Results:
Total- 222
HDL- 80
LDL- 136
Triglyerides- 32
Blood Sugar- 73
Next Check-up on Oct 14th, 2003 :)
I have proof that the total cholesterol (non fasting & fasting) are different....
When I had my non fast blood test in Nov 2001, my TC was 196.... when I had my fasting blood test in Nov 2001, my TC was 222. So, in my case, the #'s changed by 20 something points!!
------------------
Angela(24) and Richard(30)
November 2001 Blood Test Results:
Total- 222
HDL- 80
LDL- 136
Triglyerides- 32
Blood Sugar- 73
Next Check-up on Oct 14th, 2003 :)
pcovers
10-17-2003, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by AngelaNRichard:
Well,
I have proof that the total cholesterol (non fasting & fasting) are different....
When I had my non fast blood test in Nov 2001, my TC was 196.... when I had my fasting blood test in Nov 2001, my TC was 222. So, in my case, the #'s changed by 20 something points!!
You mention Nov 2001 twice. Did you mean 2001 and 2002. As to proof, your TC numbers can change that much, week to week, without any specific reason. You could have 220 today and 240 next week and 220 the following week with no change in diet and all after fasting.
Our cholesterol numbers are not like out height. They are not fixed and are subject to fluctuation. Your change from 196 to 222 is well within the bounds of normal fluctuation.
Proof would be established if you had repeated tests of fasting and non fasting in a controlled environment where the non fasting always showed consistent differences from the fasting results. It is this proof that I have never seen demonstrated or presented.
[This message has been edited by pcovers (edited 10-17-2003).]
Well,
I have proof that the total cholesterol (non fasting & fasting) are different....
When I had my non fast blood test in Nov 2001, my TC was 196.... when I had my fasting blood test in Nov 2001, my TC was 222. So, in my case, the #'s changed by 20 something points!!
You mention Nov 2001 twice. Did you mean 2001 and 2002. As to proof, your TC numbers can change that much, week to week, without any specific reason. You could have 220 today and 240 next week and 220 the following week with no change in diet and all after fasting.
Our cholesterol numbers are not like out height. They are not fixed and are subject to fluctuation. Your change from 196 to 222 is well within the bounds of normal fluctuation.
Proof would be established if you had repeated tests of fasting and non fasting in a controlled environment where the non fasting always showed consistent differences from the fasting results. It is this proof that I have never seen demonstrated or presented.
[This message has been edited by pcovers (edited 10-17-2003).]
AngelaNRichard
10-17-2003, 05:29 PM
No, it wasnt a mistake.... I had a NON FASTING test in Nov 2001 when I donated blood and it was 196.... Then, in the same month/year, had a FASTING test at my doctor's office and it was 222.
------------------
Angela(24) and Richard(30)
November 2001 Blood Test Results:
Total- 222
HDL- 80
LDL- 136
Triglyerides- 32
Blood Sugar- 73
Next Check-up on Oct 14th, 2003 :)
------------------
Angela(24) and Richard(30)
November 2001 Blood Test Results:
Total- 222
HDL- 80
LDL- 136
Triglyerides- 32
Blood Sugar- 73
Next Check-up on Oct 14th, 2003 :)
pcovers
10-17-2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by AngelaNRichard:
No, it wasnt a mistake.... I had a NON FASTING test in Nov 2001 when I donated blood and it was 196.... Then, in the same month/year, had a FASTING test at my doctor's office and it was 222.
I didn't mean to infer you had made a mistake. I was just making sure I was not mistaken on what you meant. My point remains the same, though. Your spread is very much in the normal spread one could expect without regards to fasting or non fasting.
As one example of this. Consider that those that change their diet in order to lower their cholesterol are advised that this can take months. If what you eat has such an immediate and drastic affect on one's cholesterol, then there would be no need to wait more than a few days. Stop eating eggs today and see dramatic results right away. What we eat just isn't metabolized in such a way as to cause immediate spikes in cholesterol.
However it does very much affect trigs, and thus also affect LDL numbers.
No, it wasnt a mistake.... I had a NON FASTING test in Nov 2001 when I donated blood and it was 196.... Then, in the same month/year, had a FASTING test at my doctor's office and it was 222.
I didn't mean to infer you had made a mistake. I was just making sure I was not mistaken on what you meant. My point remains the same, though. Your spread is very much in the normal spread one could expect without regards to fasting or non fasting.
As one example of this. Consider that those that change their diet in order to lower their cholesterol are advised that this can take months. If what you eat has such an immediate and drastic affect on one's cholesterol, then there would be no need to wait more than a few days. Stop eating eggs today and see dramatic results right away. What we eat just isn't metabolized in such a way as to cause immediate spikes in cholesterol.
However it does very much affect trigs, and thus also affect LDL numbers.
pcovers
10-17-2003, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by AngelaNRichard:
No, it wasnt a mistake.... I had a NON FASTING test in Nov 2001 when I donated blood and it was 196.... Then, in the same month/year, had a FASTING test at my doctor's office and it was 222.
I didn't mean to infer you had made a mistake. I was just making sure I was not mistaken on what you meant. My point remains the same, though. Your spread is very much in the normal spread one could expect without regards to fasting or non fasting.
As one example of this. Consider that those that change their diet in order to lower their cholesterol are advised that this can take months. If what you eat has such an immediate and drastic affect on one's cholesterol, then there would be no need to wait more than a few days. Stop eating eggs today and see dramatic results right away. What we eat just isn't metabolized in such a way as to cause immediate spikes in cholesterol.
However it does very much affect trigs, and thus also affect LDL numbers.
No, it wasnt a mistake.... I had a NON FASTING test in Nov 2001 when I donated blood and it was 196.... Then, in the same month/year, had a FASTING test at my doctor's office and it was 222.
I didn't mean to infer you had made a mistake. I was just making sure I was not mistaken on what you meant. My point remains the same, though. Your spread is very much in the normal spread one could expect without regards to fasting or non fasting.
As one example of this. Consider that those that change their diet in order to lower their cholesterol are advised that this can take months. If what you eat has such an immediate and drastic affect on one's cholesterol, then there would be no need to wait more than a few days. Stop eating eggs today and see dramatic results right away. What we eat just isn't metabolized in such a way as to cause immediate spikes in cholesterol.
However it does very much affect trigs, and thus also affect LDL numbers.