On Tue, 29 May 2001, Chuck Spindler wrote:

> Unfortunately, she didn't have a triglyceride number to tell me --
> either they didn't include it in the test for some dumb reason or they

> forgot to tell her the number when she called for her results.  I told

> her to call and check on that.


Update on her numbers -- she called the doc and was given the full
scoop:

Total chol. - 300
HDL - 85
LDL - 208
VLDL - 7
Triglyceride - 36

So, now I'm even more perplexed.  It seems to me that there is a clear
contradiction between the high total cholesterol and LDL readings, and
the fact that she has a very high HDL, very low triglyceride, and an
extremely low VLDL.  Isn't VLDL the "really" bad stuff that we should be
most worried about?

I'm beginning to wonder if my mother is a person who simply has
naturally high total cholesterol (and, thus, LDL) numbers.  As far as we
know, there is no presence of heart disease.  Her doctor, of course,
wants to put her right back on a statin drug (Zocor) and is also sending
her for an artery scan to see if there is any plague build-up present.

Fortunately, she is not going to take any medication prior to learning
the results of the artery scan and until she can really understand how
to interpret these new numbers, which I am trying to help her do!  My
instinct is that she is in pretty good shape with a high LDL and low
triglyceride like she has, despite the seemingly high total cholesterol
and LDL.

What do you all think?  Any insight would be greatly appreciated . . .

Chuck