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: Joe NYC who wrote (3684)	2/21/2009 4:26:58 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 39322

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. It does say so, somewhere on his site. I've seen it. The 60/60/60 thing is just a shortcut. He can be sloppy that way. He means 60 or above for HDL, 60 or below for trigs and LDL. BTW, my HDL has been as high as 78, also as low as 41. So I'm in the middle of my historical range now. I have seen the 60 figure for HDL elsewhere. From americanheart.com: "An HDL cholesterol of 60 mg/dL or higher gives some protection against heart disease." Your wife's is impressive. If (as it likely is) you partlicle size is large, 108 is not any worse than 60. My particle size is, indeed, mostly large. And I'm not particularly concerned about LDL in general. Nor my LDL at 108. I agree with the thinking that it's not as important as other things. Besides, mine has been as high as 230. That makes 108 look awfully good. I was just expecting it to drop because Dr Davis lead me to believe that it would. What (other than Dr. Davis) makes you think that computed LD of 60 is better than 108? You're right. I've never seen the 60 standard elsewhere. I have seen articles suggesting that 150 or less is best for total cholesterol, which implies something less than 108 for the LDL. This is from Wiki: "The desirable LDL level is considered to be less than 100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L)[31], although a newer target of < 70 mg/dL can be considered in higher risk individuals based on some of the above-mentioned trials."