On Sat, 12 Dec 1998, Nieft / Secola wrote:

> Anyway, Melisa's overall cholesteral was flagged as high since it was over
> 200, though I thought her ratios were nice. (Isn't there something about a
> ratio including trigs?)

Yes, this would be the TGL/HDL ratio, which should be below 2,
and ideally below 1, according to Gaziano.

> Melisa:         11/98   1995    1993    1991
>
> Blood Pressure: 90/60   100/60  100/70  110/80
> Cholesteral:    216     186     170     153   (339 in 1/98)
> Triglyceride:   47      49      40      NA
> HDL:            75      67      NA      NA
> LDL:            132     112*    NA      NA
> CHOL/HDL:       2.88    2.78    NA      NA
> LDL/HDL:        1.8     1.67*   NA      NA

Well, her CHOL/HDL and LDL/HDL ratios both got a bit "worse" from
1995 to 1998, but are nevertheless *way* below what would be
considered "risky." Her TGL/HDL ratio got a bit "better" but was
extremely favorable to begin with.  There doesn't seem to be any
good reason to fixate on the modest increase in total
cholesterol.

> Myself:
>
> Blood Pressure: 100/64  100/60  100/70  110/70
> Cholesteral:    181     175     167     182
> Triglyceride:   34      70      99      NA
> HDL:            56      63      NA      NA
> LDL:            118     104*    NA      NA
> CHOL/HDL:       3.23    2.7     NA      NA
> LDL/HDL:        2.1     1.65*   NA      NA

Basically, the same comments apply to your lipids.  The drop in
HDL would be a concern if other numbers were off, but not here.

> Any riviting analysis of this info?

Nothing very riveting.  Controversy continues to rage as to the
significance of cholesterol data as risk factors.  There is
nothing approaching consensus as to which ratios, numbers, etc.
are the important ones.  Atkins makes much of Gaziano's work on
the TGL/HDL ratio, probably because his diet tends to improve
that one.  Others have contested his methods and results.  As
Ravnskov points out, the various studies comparing this number
with that ratio are not mutually consistent.  All of this
suggests that there are other variables that are equally, if more
important as predictors of heart disease.  Sears has become a
defender of the fasting insulin number as an important risk
factor.  Others are looking at the waist:hip ratio.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]