• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

My Primary refuses to do my requested blood work. What should I do?

blood work primary what a bitch

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 27 June 2014 - 02:35 PM


I had a metabolic panel recently which my primary was 'satisfied' did not require any further bloodwork, but I wanted to check my inflammation levels and have my CRP checked, she refused to hand me a script. 

 

Also part of that blood work was a lipid panel, which was NOT fasting, and a blood glucose which was ALSO not fasting. And which had interesting results.

 

My Total cholesterol was like a bit over 200 right? But my HDL was 95 while my LDL was 100 and something. I asked her if it was the small particle or large particle and she said she thought it didn't matter and that the tests wouldn't be anything "that comprehensive". 

 

My blood glucose was 92, AFTER eating 3 times within the prior 5 hour time frame and then once about 30 minutes prior to the test. Don't know about anybody else but a blood glucose reading of 92 despite not fasting prior seems very good to me. 

 

Anyway, the point of this post is that the Doctors in my current medical community are being quite condescending toward me and insulting of my intelligence. Even after I explained to them that I have researched disease correlation and chronic inflammation, and for my own piece of mind would like the tests and that my insurance would pay for it. 

 

She went on to explain to me that "you are a young, healthy man" and that "we here are trained to only go ahead with tests when indicated by prior symptoms". 

 

So the big question is how the FUCK do we get around this kind of condescending bullshit form doctors in the medical establishment? Especially in places where this kind of attitude is the norm? 

 

I want what the fuck I want when I want it! Not when THEY tell me I need it. 


Edited by TheFountain, 27 June 2014 - 02:35 PM.


#2 ZHMike

  • Guest
  • 227 posts
  • 130
  • Location:saratoga springs ny

Posted 27 June 2014 - 02:51 PM

How is your HDL so high? I am envious.. do you supplement anything to get that high?



#3 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,837 posts
  • 720
  • Location:Austria

Posted 27 June 2014 - 02:53 PM

The advise I usually get: 'fire this doc, and find a better one' didn't work for me neither. A while it seem to get even worse with each other tried. But since you're still young and determined you'll find a better one.


This was a cholesterol panel comparison between fasting and 1 hr postprandial on a high carb-diet in India, where these lab test are cheap:

Mar 2014: fasting 1 hr postpr. %
TC 148 163 10
HDL 38 41 8
nonHDL 110 122 11
LDL 87 96 10
VLDL 22 27 20
TG 112 133 18
BG 100 124 24
TG/HDL 2,9 3,2 11
LDL/HDL 2,3 2,3 1
TC/HDL 3,9 4 1,7


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 27 June 2014 - 03:40 PM

 

The advise I usually get: 'fire this doc, and find a better one' didn't work for me neither. A while it seem to get even worse with each other tried. But since you're still young and determined you'll find a better one.


This was a cholesterol panel comparison between fasting and 1 hr postprandial on a high carb-diet in India, where these lab test are cheap:

Mar 2014: fasting 1 hr postpr. % TC 148 163 10 HDL 38 41 8 nonHDL 110 122 11 LDL 87 96 10 VLDL 22 27 20 TG 112 133 18 BG 100 124 24 TG/HDL 2,9 3,2 11 LDL/HDL 2,3 2,3 1 TC/HDL 3,9 4 1,7

 

 

This woman said that my HDL was the highest she's ever seen in any patient. I was like "Oh really?". 

 

And then she went on to attribute it to my life style and my 'healthy' eating habits, high fat, primal etc.

 

I was thinking "does she think this is gonna make me forget about asking for the script again?". 



#5 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 27 June 2014 - 03:55 PM

How is your HDL so high? I am envious.. do you supplement anything to get that high?

 

I am not sure. It might be the Fish oil? I recently started taking Ubiquinol too. But the last time I had my TC checked it was also 90 something. But I was not taking the Ubiquinol then. 

 

I also work out, do martial arts, and eat a fairly high fat diet as of late. 



#6 ZHMike

  • Guest
  • 227 posts
  • 130
  • Location:saratoga springs ny

Posted 27 June 2014 - 04:05 PM

you can get a CRP over at LEF for 56 bucks if you really want to know.  WIth an HDL like that you have very low cardiovascular risk.. so cheers to that


  • dislike x 1

#7 Darryl

  • Guest
  • 650 posts
  • 657
  • Location:New Orleans
  • NO

Posted 27 June 2014 - 06:02 PM

The failure of HDL modulating clinical trials, and null results of Mendelian randomisation studies of HDL-affecting genes, indicate that HDL is likely a coincident marker of other heath habits like exercise, rather than directly affecting CVD outcomes.

 

I take niacin, but I expect any benefits will arise from minor lowering of LDL and triglycerides and the antiinflammatory effect of flushing stimulation, with the HDL raising effect (my HDL is 86, on a very low-fat vegan diet) being without much consequence.

 

Those who live in the U.S. have the option of a number of third-party purchasers of lab work. LEF has been mentioned, but I used Walk-in Lab, which had some remarkable seasonal discounts on the panels I wanted.


Edited by Darryl, 27 June 2014 - 06:53 PM.

  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#8 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 27 June 2014 - 07:38 PM

Don't forget, most insurance allows for something like $600-800 in elective blood work. You might see if you can use it on some tests from a local lab or discount internet lab.

 

Some internet labs such as direct labs are very cheap for some stuff.



#9 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 27 June 2014 - 11:43 PM

I think the medical establishment is pretty much in agreement that high HDL is a decent predictor of good CV health. 


  • dislike x 2
  • like x 1

#10 bracconiere

  • Guest
  • 129 posts
  • 15
  • Location:Az
  • NO

Posted 28 June 2014 - 03:14 AM

If you want lab work done on your own accord you have to pay for it yourself.....In the USA there are online sites that let you order whatever test you want as long as your willing to pay for it yourself... the doc has to worry about insurance covering it....


  • like x 1

#11 Darryl

  • Guest
  • 650 posts
  • 657
  • Location:New Orleans
  • NO

Posted 28 June 2014 - 03:48 AM

High HDL levels, and particularly high HDL-to-total cholesterol ratios, in the general population, are associated with lower CV risk.

 

However, therapeutic interventions to raise HDL have had poor outcomes, and there's no evidence that unusual diets targeting this marker would fare better. Moreover, multiple Mendellian randomization studies demonstrate that a genetic propensity to higher HDL levels isn't protective, so belief that low HDL is in the causal chain for most CVD has taken a considerable blow.

 

Association is not causation.  There may be other factors (exercise, obesity and factors hitherto unidentified) that effect both HDL and CVD outcomes, that are responsible for the epidemiological association. In the drawing below I speculated that they might be exercise and obesity, but it should just read 'other factors'. The absence of arrows between HDL, HDL targeted therapy, genetic propensity, and CVD outcomes is intentional.

 

2h3oh76.gif

 

Briel, M., Ferreira-Gonzalez, I., You, J. J., Karanicolas, P. J., Akl, E. A., Wu, P., ... & Guyatt, G. H. (2009). Association between change in high density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality: systematic review and meta-regression analysisBmj338.

 

Available data suggest that simply increasing the amount of circulating high density lipoprotein cholesterol does not reduce the risk of coronary heart disease events, coronary heart disease deaths, or total deaths.

 

 

Voight, B. F., Peloso, G. M., Orho-Melander, M., Frikke-Schmidt, R., Barbalic, M., Jensen, M. K., ... & Ingelsson, E. (2012). Plasma HDL cholesterol and risk of myocardial infarction: a mendelian randomisation studyThe Lancet,380(9841), 572-580.

 

Genetic mechanisms that raise plasma HDL cholesterol do not seem to lower risk of myocardial infarction. These data challenge the concept that raising of plasma HDL cholesterol will uniformly translate into reductions in risk of myocardial infarction.

 

 

Holmes, M. V., Asselbergs, F. W., Palmer, T. M., Drenos, F., Lanktree, M. B., Nelson, C. P., ... & Gaunt, T. R. (2014). Mendelian randomization of blood lipids for coronary heart diseaseEuropean heart journal, eht571.

 

Neither the restricted allele score nor the unrestricted HDL-C allele score adjusted for triglycerides, LDL-C, or statin use showed a robust association... The genetic findings support a causal effect of triglycerides on CHD risk, but a causal role for HDL-C, though possible, remains less certain.

 
The restricted HDL-C allele score did not show an association with CHD. The restricted HDL-C allele score was more selective for HDL-C (showing only a very weak association with triglycerides and no effect on LDL-C), but also explained less of the variance of the index trait, HDL-C (even when compared with other restricted scores), so it remains uncertain if this attenuation in the effect estimate implies that an intervention that solely modifies HDL-C would not reduce risk of CHD, or whether it is due to a reduction in statistical power. This former interpretation is in agreement with findings from our unrestricted allele score adjusted for triglycerides, and with a previous multiple SNPs Mendelian randomization analysis that, using different genetic instruments, also failed to identify a clear causal role of HDL-C in CHD.

 

 

As you might imagine, these results have caused some consternation within the cardiology community:

 

 

Ng, D. S., Wong, N. C., & Hegele, R. A. (2013). HDL—is it too big to fail?.Nature Reviews Endocrinology9(5), 308-312.

 

5 years ago, few could have envisioned recent developments swirling around HDL. Conceivably, given the past economic and intellectual investments into the HDL hypothesis, it can now only be repealed at a very high cost. Furthermore, although difficult to quantify, some important psychological factors may have been at play. These include confirmation bias, as evidenced by the tendency to seek out opinions and facts that support a priori beliefs about the HDL hypothesis; selective recall, as evidenced by the habit of sometimes remembering only facts and experiences that reinforce strongly-held assumptions about HDL; biased evaluation, as evidenced by quick acceptance of data that support the HDL hypothesis, but close scrutiny and more easy rejection of contradictory data; and, lastly, group thinking among key opinion leaders, as evidenced by the pressure to agree with others in publications, public conferences or team-based settings. All of these biases have worked in recent years towards reinforcing the belief that HDL and CVD are linked causally to each other, and may have contributed to the current situation in which HDL indeed seems too big to fail.

 

 

Perhaps someday we'll see a prospective trial of dietary interventions to raise HDL with hard outcome (CVD event) endpoints, and perhaps this will demonstrate dietary interventions succeed where therapeutic interventions failed. But I suspect HDL, like homocysteine and C-reactive protein, may be another case where people are treating the marker and not the disease. 

 

On the other hand, many HDL increasing diets also reduce triglycerides, and the Mendelian randomization studies are strongly supporting a causal role for triglyceride levels in CVD, as well as for Lp(a), though with smaller effect sizes than that for LDL. Based on these most recent reports, it appears a diet with lowering LDL as its first priority while mindful of triglycerides and Lp(a) as secondary priorities may be the way forward.

 

As to my comment about nicotinic acid, it looks like all the benefits are below the horizontal line:

 

image005.gif

 


Edited by Darryl, 28 June 2014 - 04:21 AM.

  • like x 5
  • dislike x 1

#12 maximum411

  • Guest
  • 43 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Massachusetts

Posted 28 June 2014 - 05:02 AM

Check out cue.me. It's a home saliva/blood testing device funded on Kickstarter coming out next year for a few hundred bucks, and will let you perform tests at home for things like testosterone, CRP, vitamin D, etc.

#13 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 28 June 2014 - 07:41 PM

High HDL levels, and particularly high HDL-to-total cholesterol ratios, in the general population, are associated with lower CV risk.

 

However, therapeutic interventions to raise HDL have had poor outcomes, and there's no evidence that unusual diets targeting this marker would fare better. Moreover, multiple Mendellian randomization studies demonstrate that a genetic propensity to higher HDL levels isn't protective, so belief that low HDL is in the causal chain for most CVD has taken a considerable blow.

 

Association is not causation.  There may be other factors (exercise, obesity and factors hitherto unidentified) that effect both HDL and CVD outcomes, that are responsible for the epidemiological association. In the drawing below I speculated that they might be exercise and obesity, but it should just read 'other factors'. The absence of arrows between HDL, HDL targeted therapy, genetic propensity, and CVD outcomes is intentional.

 

2h3oh76.gif

 

Briel, M., Ferreira-Gonzalez, I., You, J. J., Karanicolas, P. J., Akl, E. A., Wu, P., ... & Guyatt, G. H. (2009). Association between change in high density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality: systematic review and meta-regression analysisBmj338.

 

Available data suggest that simply increasing the amount of circulating high density lipoprotein cholesterol does not reduce the risk of coronary heart disease events, coronary heart disease deaths, or total deaths.

 

 

Voight, B. F., Peloso, G. M., Orho-Melander, M., Frikke-Schmidt, R., Barbalic, M., Jensen, M. K., ... & Ingelsson, E. (2012). Plasma HDL cholesterol and risk of myocardial infarction: a mendelian randomisation studyThe Lancet,380(9841), 572-580.

 

Genetic mechanisms that raise plasma HDL cholesterol do not seem to lower risk of myocardial infarction. These data challenge the concept that raising of plasma HDL cholesterol will uniformly translate into reductions in risk of myocardial infarction.

 

 

Holmes, M. V., Asselbergs, F. W., Palmer, T. M., Drenos, F., Lanktree, M. B., Nelson, C. P., ... & Gaunt, T. R. (2014). Mendelian randomization of blood lipids for coronary heart diseaseEuropean heart journal, eht571.

 

Neither the restricted allele score nor the unrestricted HDL-C allele score adjusted for triglycerides, LDL-C, or statin use showed a robust association... The genetic findings support a causal effect of triglycerides on CHD risk, but a causal role for HDL-C, though possible, remains less certain.

 
The restricted HDL-C allele score did not show an association with CHD. The restricted HDL-C allele score was more selective for HDL-C (showing only a very weak association with triglycerides and no effect on LDL-C), but also explained less of the variance of the index trait, HDL-C (even when compared with other restricted scores), so it remains uncertain if this attenuation in the effect estimate implies that an intervention that solely modifies HDL-C would not reduce risk of CHD, or whether it is due to a reduction in statistical power. This former interpretation is in agreement with findings from our unrestricted allele score adjusted for triglycerides, and with a previous multiple SNPs Mendelian randomization analysis that, using different genetic instruments, also failed to identify a clear causal role of HDL-C in CHD.

 

 

As you might imagine, these results have caused some consternation within the cardiology community:

 

 

Ng, D. S., Wong, N. C., & Hegele, R. A. (2013). HDL—is it too big to fail?.Nature Reviews Endocrinology9(5), 308-312.

 

5 years ago, few could have envisioned recent developments swirling around HDL. Conceivably, given the past economic and intellectual investments into the HDL hypothesis, it can now only be repealed at a very high cost. Furthermore, although difficult to quantify, some important psychological factors may have been at play. These include confirmation bias, as evidenced by the tendency to seek out opinions and facts that support a priori beliefs about the HDL hypothesis; selective recall, as evidenced by the habit of sometimes remembering only facts and experiences that reinforce strongly-held assumptions about HDL; biased evaluation, as evidenced by quick acceptance of data that support the HDL hypothesis, but close scrutiny and more easy rejection of contradictory data; and, lastly, group thinking among key opinion leaders, as evidenced by the pressure to agree with others in publications, public conferences or team-based settings. All of these biases have worked in recent years towards reinforcing the belief that HDL and CVD are linked causally to each other, and may have contributed to the current situation in which HDL indeed seems too big to fail.

 

 

Perhaps someday we'll see a prospective trial of dietary interventions to raise HDL with hard outcome (CVD event) endpoints, and perhaps this will demonstrate dietary interventions succeed where therapeutic interventions failed. But I suspect HDL, like homocysteine and C-reactive protein, may be another case where people are treating the marker and not the disease. 

 

On the other hand, many HDL increasing diets also reduce triglycerides, and the Mendelian randomization studies are strongly supporting a causal role for triglyceride levels in CVD, as well as for Lp(a), though with smaller effect sizes than that for LDL. Based on these most recent reports, it appears a diet with lowering LDL as its first priority while mindful of triglycerides and Lp(a) as secondary priorities may be the way forward.

 

As to my comment about nicotinic acid, it looks like all the benefits are below the horizontal line:

 

image005.gif

 

 You seem to be taking an arbitrarily cynical position on this, as if I am asking people for advice on raising my HDL. Did you see that my HDL is 95? 

 

I am quite content with this. I am not sure why you wish to dispense confusion and discouragement with this circular rant about this not working and that not meaning this. It makes no sense what you are doing, which is mainly muddling the water. Why? 


  • dislike x 4

#14 Darryl

  • Guest
  • 650 posts
  • 657
  • Location:New Orleans
  • NO

Posted 28 June 2014 - 07:53 PM

Because the science is fascinating, and its changing the perception of what markers are really important among the experts.

 

Also, my first post was originally a response to ZHMike.


Edited by Darryl, 28 June 2014 - 07:55 PM.

  • like x 3
  • dislike x 1

#15 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 28 June 2014 - 08:36 PM

Because the science is fascinating, and its changing the perception of what markers are really important among the experts.

 

Also, my first post was originally a response to ZHMike.

 

I am not saying the primary was right or wrong in her contention that my lifestyle played a role in why my HDL was 95, but I an content with the fact that there is no inverse associations with good health and high HDL as far as the consensus is concerned. Stop trying to make people paranoid about every little fucking thing please. We are all doing the very best we can do here. Confusing people like you are trying to do is tantamount to saying "diet means shit, just go eat Mcdonalds". We don't need that approach one bit. Nor do we need to stress about every little thing. Carry on, but don't expect me to sit here while you try to stress people out and confuse them and act like it's the right thing to do. Or, if you do it why don't you add an addendum containing a solution to the problem instead of making it seem like a hopeless mess?


Edited by TheFountain, 28 June 2014 - 08:39 PM.

  • dislike x 5

#16 ZHMike

  • Guest
  • 227 posts
  • 130
  • Location:saratoga springs ny

Posted 30 June 2014 - 03:44 PM

high HDL is a negative risk factor according to the latest ATP III guidelines.



#17 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 30 June 2014 - 04:28 PM

high HDL is a negative risk factor according to the latest ATP III guidelines.

That's what i'm saying BRAH!

 

Other people talkin bout some confusin shit. 


  • dislike x 2
  • like x 1

#18 blood

  • Guest
  • 926 posts
  • 254
  • Location:...

Posted 01 July 2014 - 05:30 AM

why don't you add an addendum containing a solution to the problem instead of making it seem like a hopeless mess?

 
He did more or less do that by offering a high-level summary/ synthesis, i.e.,

... Based on these most recent reports, it appears a diet with lowering LDL as its first priority while mindful of triglycerides and Lp(a) as secondary priorities may be the way forward...


Edited by blood, 01 July 2014 - 05:31 AM.

  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#19 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 01 July 2014 - 10:16 AM

 

why don't you add an addendum containing a solution to the problem instead of making it seem like a hopeless mess?

 
He did more or less do that by offering a high-level summary/ synthesis, i.e.,

... Based on these most recent reports, it appears a diet with lowering LDL as its first priority while mindful of triglycerides and Lp(a) as secondary priorities may be the way forward...

 

He said:

 

"However, therapeutic interventions to raise HDL have had poor outcomes, and there's no evidence that unusual diets targeting this marker would fare better."

 

I highly doubt my specialized primal diet has nothing to do with my higher HDL levels! Especially when comparing them to those of people on other diets, some of whom who may have a lower total cholesterol but ALSO a very low HDL. I refer specifically to some of our vegan friends. 

 

That is the part I did not like....


Edited by TheFountain, 01 July 2014 - 10:17 AM.

  • dislike x 4

#20 blood

  • Guest
  • 926 posts
  • 254
  • Location:...

Posted 01 July 2014 - 11:08 AM

He said:
 
"However, therapeutic interventions to raise HDL have had poor outcomes, and there's no evidence that unusual diets targeting this marker would fare better."
 
I highly doubt my specialized primal diet has nothing to do with my higher HDL levels! Especially when comparing them to those of people on other diets, some of whom who may have a lower total cholesterol but ALSO a very low HDL. I refer specifically to some of our vegan friends. 
 
That is the part I did not like....


The (interesting) question is not whether your "specialised primal diet" has raised your HDL levels, but whether the raised HDL levels (stemming from a dietary intervention) are even going to bring you any benefits in health outcomes. Darryl's point was that there isn't much evidence (apparently) that drug interventions that raise HDL levels result in improved outcomes like fewer deaths etc. Maybe we'll see the same thing with dietary interventions. Whether you 'like' any of this is kind of immaterial... :)
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#21 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 02 July 2014 - 12:38 AM

 

He said:
 
"However, therapeutic interventions to raise HDL have had poor outcomes, and there's no evidence that unusual diets targeting this marker would fare better."
 
I highly doubt my specialized primal diet has nothing to do with my higher HDL levels! Especially when comparing them to those of people on other diets, some of whom who may have a lower total cholesterol but ALSO a very low HDL. I refer specifically to some of our vegan friends. 
 
That is the part I did not like....


The (interesting) question is not whether your "specialised primal diet" has raised your HDL levels, but whether the raised HDL levels (stemming from a dietary intervention) are even going to bring you any benefits in health outcomes. Darryl's point was that there isn't much evidence (apparently) that drug interventions that raise HDL levels result in improved outcomes like fewer deaths etc. Maybe we'll see the same thing with dietary interventions. Whether you 'like' any of this is kind of immaterial... :)

 

Isn't the same true of whether or not you 'like' my response? 

 

I really don't give a shit honestly. What I won't tolerate is people breeding fear based on their ideologies.

 

How many vegans do we have on this forum tauting their total cholesterol even though their HDL is very low and even though studies show that HDL above 70 is typically associated with less risk?

 

Quite simply all he did was give a blah opinion and made it sound smart with a bunch of spiraling obfuscating while cherry picking 'data' to make connections that don't exist. The results are the results! Stop spreading fear like a bunch of deathists on a crusade. 


Edited by TheFountain, 02 July 2014 - 12:40 AM.

  • dislike x 5
  • like x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1

#22 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 02 July 2014 - 01:00 AM

Honestly, TheFountain, this is pathetic.  You don't understand Darryl's post, so you insult him.  You are acting like a childish knucklehead.  Try to keep your language a little cleaner, ok?


  • like x 4
  • dislike x 1
  • Agree x 1

#23 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 02 July 2014 - 01:26 AM

Honestly, TheFountain, this is pathetic.  You don't understand Darryl's post, so you insult him.  You are acting like a childish knucklehead.  Try to keep your language a little cleaner, ok?

I am NOT going to sit here and let people spread deathist fear mongering through obfuscating on every other reason why nothing is good and nothing will work, FUCK THAT.

 

You wanna start name calling niner? How old are you, 60? Seriously, get over it or act your age. Thanks. 


  • dislike x 7
  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1

#24 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 02 July 2014 - 01:29 AM

What's more, there are people out there who will read what Daryl said and take it as "Oh, diet doesn't matter? Okay i'll go stuff my face with Mcdonalds then". He is saying nothing works, and if that is true what the fuck are we sitting here discussing any of it for? 

 

Obviously something works, pieces of dietary intervention and pieces of supplementation are doing SOMETHING. Otherwise we wouldn't have sub forums for each god damn spectacle of this thing called longevity! DUH! 

 

It just irritates me that some guys sit there and spread fear at all costs! Sounds like misery loves company! 


  • dislike x 5
  • like x 1

#25 Dolph

  • Guest
  • 512 posts
  • 122
  • Location:Germany

Posted 04 July 2014 - 11:03 AM

There seems to be a negative correlation between HDL and basic intelligence, too. Jesus...

 


  • like x 3
  • dislike x 2

#26 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 04 July 2014 - 04:40 PM

you can get a CRP over at LEF for 56 bucks if you really want to know.  WIth an HDL like that you have very low cardiovascular risk.. so cheers to that

I don't have the money for these things. 


There seems to be a negative correlation between HDL and basic intelligence, too. Jesus...

 

There seems to be a positive correlation between high HDL and the probability you wouldn't try to insult my intelligence to my face. Which is possibly attributable to the co-factor of low testosterone on your part. 


  • dislike x 3
  • like x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1

#27 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 04 July 2014 - 04:52 PM

Anyway getting back the fuck on topic, during this same visit my vitamin D was 36.2 ngs/ml which she seems to think is very good, I differed with her opinion and felt I needed to be over 40 ngs to be "very good". 

 

BUT I had unusually high Urea nitrogen at 24 MG/DL and unusually High Co2 at 21 MMO/L

 

Neither of which she mentioned to me when I visited her office! But when I demanded to get the blood work results back in the mail I finally saw it. 

 

Also she kept oddly warning me against "too much supplementation" the entire time. 


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • dislike x 1

#28 Dolph

  • Guest
  • 512 posts
  • 122
  • Location:Germany

Posted 04 July 2014 - 05:02 PM

There seems to be a positive correlation between high HDL and the probability you wouldn't try to insult my intelligence to my face. 

 

It's not me "insulting" you, it's YOU proving my point with almost every single sentence you wrote in this thread so far...


  • dislike x 2
  • like x 1

#29 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 04 July 2014 - 05:58 PM

 

There seems to be a positive correlation between high HDL and the probability you wouldn't try to insult my intelligence to my face. 

 

It's not me "insulting" you, it's YOU proving my point with almost every single sentence you wrote in this thread so far...

 

And your passive aggressive antagonism helps? See, I am what they call a man. I don't do that passive aggression stuff. I am right in yo face with it. 


  • dislike x 2
  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1

#30 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 04 July 2014 - 06:18 PM

Sorry, my "unusually high c02" was 31 not 21 MMO/L







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: blood work, primary, what a bitch

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users