Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Heart Attacks, Cancer and strokes. Preventative approaches -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3681)	2/21/2009 4:00:09 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39322

My HDL and Trig are on target, an almost perfect 1.05/1 ratio. Neither has ever been a particular problem. My LDL, however, was 108 (computed--I had the plain vanilla blood tests this time, not the VAP or NMR). It's been sitting within a couple of points of that for about two years so nothing I've done in the last seven months has made a bit of difference. It had been considerably higher prior to two years ago. Statins brought it down. What (other than Dr. Davis) makes you think that computed LD of 60 is better than 108? I think Dr. Davis's numbers are just a reference of one "ok" scenario. For example, my wife's HDL is, I believe, 87. Is it too high? I don't think so. Maybe for HDL, it should say 60 or higher. For triglycerides, generally, down is a good direction. So maybe Dr. Davis should say 60 or lower is a good number for Triglycerides. With LDL, is 59 better than 60? Is 59 better than 61? Is (something extreme) like 30 better than 60? My opinion is that LDL (computed) number is the least important number (without knowing the particle size). If (as it likely is) you partlicle size is large, 108 is not any worse than 60. Joe