6 replies to this topic

[Jay]

I got my first blood test back after becoming healthy (i.e., starting to pay serious attention to my health and longevity) about 8 months ago. All my results are in the normal range, except the white blood count (WBC) and proteins. The high proteins are likely just dehydration, but I don't understand why the WBC is low. I am 31, male, 140 lbs, 5' 9". I feel fine, don't think I have had even a cold in a few months. I don't know much about blood tests so I could use any help you can offer. Thanks!

WBC 4.2 (normal range is 4.5-10.8)
RBC 5.32
HGB 16.1
HCT 46.3
MCV 87.1
MCH 30.3
MCHC 34.8
RDW 13
MPV 6.7
Platelet 290
Lymphocytes 37.8 (range 20-40)
Absolute Lymphocytes: 1.6
Neutrophils 55.6 (range 36-66)
Absolute neutrophils .8
Monocytes 4.8 (range 1-12)
Absolute monocytes .2
Eosinophils 1.1
Basophils .8

Protein, total 8.4 (range 6.3-8.2)
Albumin 5.4 (range 3.5-5)

Chloresterol 161
Trigs 62
HDL 52
LDL 97

B-12 732
Folate 19.31

D 25-OH 45

I already supplement with 2500IU D3. 2500 IU A (from all sources, excluding dietary carotenes). 2 grams of fish oil (comprised of high EPA oil and cod liver oil). Magnesium citrate, 400mg. Zinc (12mg). Selenium 75mcg. Potassium iodide (half a pill twice a week). B-12 and folic acid twice a week. Curcumin one a day. Pine bark occasionally. Green tea, few cups a day. Probiotics, when I feel I need it. Vitamin E, 100 IU every once in a while. Vitamin K2, 100 mcg of mk-4 and/or mk-7 most days.
I also take 40 mg of nexium and a baby aspirin (81mg) every day. I have Barrett's esophagus, so chemoprevention is a top priority for me. There's lots of good data on aspirin and BE and the balance of data supprts acid suppression IMO.
Thanks again!

Edited by Jay, 02 August 2009 - 01:27 AM.

[caston]

You'd need more information about *which* white blood cells but low white blood cell count can also be a sign of low levels of inflammation which is good. They can also mean a virus is attacking your white blood cells but lets hope it's the first one

Remember the "normal" figures are for "normal" people not would-be immortalists like us

[Jay]

You'd need more information about *which* white blood cells but low white blood cell count can also be a sign of low levels of inflammation which is good. They can also mean a virus is attacking your white blood cells but lets hope it's the first one

Remember the "normal" figures are for "normal" people not would-be immortalists like us

Can anti-inflammatories (like aspirin, green tea, and curcumin) lower WBC? Can a WBC of 4.2 be consistent with good health? I don't feel at all sick.

[VespeneGas]

Can anti-inflammatories (like aspirin, green tea, and curcumin) lower WBC? Can a WBC of 4.2 be consistent with good health? I don't feel at all sick.

If you were sick, low WBC count would be a problem, a potentially life-threatening one. If you aren't sick, low white cell count is a sign that you don't have chronic inflammation causing a chronically, inappropriately elevated immune response, which is a VERY good thing. Calorie restriction reduces systemic markers of inflammation and white counts, and this is probably one of the major mechanisms through which it prevents disease.

In answer to your question, I'm pretty sure that by reducing the synthesis and release of inflammatory mediators, chemicals like those mentioned above could lower WBC count, but I wouldn't worry about it. If anyone knows more, feel free to chime in.

[Jay]

Thanks for the responses. They put my on the right path. In my anxiety, I also missed some older posts about WBC and CRON that reached the same conclusions. Apologies.

It does seem that having a low WBC is either a very good thing or a very bad thing. The following study found that overall mortality was lowest among people with WBCs between 3.5 and 6 (and also found that WBCs have declined generally over the past several decades). A WBC in the 3.5-6 range seems to offer more protection against CVD than against cancer. Parsing the charts, it seems that a WBC of about 4 is associated with the best results.

In the second study below, it seems rates of non-lung cancers increase with increasing WBC but not rates of lung cancer, after controlling for smoking (which causes an increase in WBC).

White Blood Cell Count and Mortality in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging

http://www.journals....0/fulltext#fig2
The secular trend of white blood cell (WBC) count and the relationship between WBC count and mortality were evaluated in 1,083 women and 1,720 men enrolled from 1958 to 2002. We found a secular downward trend in WBC count in parallel with a secular mortality decline within WBC groups from successive cohorts. Participants with WBC >6,000/mm3 had higher mortality risk compared with those with 3,501 to 6,000 WBC/mm3, and WBC count significantly increased in participants who died compared with those who survived. In the period 1958 to 2002, the mortality decline was relatively independent of the secular downward trend in WBC count.

WBC Count and the Risk of Cancer Mortality in a National Sample of U.S. Adults: Results from the Second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Mortality Study

http://cebp.aacrjour.../full/13/6/1052

Inflammation has been shown to be a risk factor for several chronic diseases. Few epidemiologic studies have examined the relationship between markers of inflammation and cancer. The current study included 7,674 Second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES II) participants, 30 to 74 years of age, between 1976 and 1980. Mortality follow-up through December 31, 1992 was assessed using the National Death Index and Social Security Administration Death Master File. A graded association between higher WBC and higher risk of total cancer mortality was observed [highest versus lowest quartile (relative risk [RR] 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53-3.23)] after adjusting for age, sex, and race. After further adjustment for smoking, physical activity, body mass index, alcohol intake, education, hematocrit, and diabetes, WBC remained significantly associated (P trend = 0.03) with total cancer mortality [highest versus lowest quartile (RR 1.66; 95% CI, 1.08-2.56)]. In stratified analyses, increased WBC was associated with higher risk of non-lung cancer (P trend = 0.04), but not lung cancer (P trend = 0.18). Among never smokers, a 1 SD increase in WBC (2.2 x 109 cells/L) was associated with greater risk of total (RR 1.32; 95% CI, 1.05-1.67) and non-lung (RR 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03-1.63) cancer mortality. These findings support the hypothesis that inflammation is an independent risk factor for cancer mortality. Additional studies are needed to determine whether circulating levels of inflammatory markers are associated with increased risk of incident cancer.

Edited by Jay, 03 August 2009 - 10:32 PM.

[castrensis]

WBC 4.2 (normal range is 4.5-10.8)
RBC 5.32
HGB 16.1
HCT 46.3
MCV 87.1
MCH 30.3
MCHC 34.8
RDW 13
MPV 6.7
Platelet 290
Lymphocytes 37.8 (range 20-40)
Absolute Lymphocytes: 1.6
Neutrophils 55.6 (range 36-66)
Absolute neutrophils .8
Monocytes 4.8 (range 1-12)
Absolute monocytes .2
Eosinophils 1.1
Basophils .8

I wouldn't worry too much about your WBCs, so long as your physician is not, as lab reference ranges are differ slightly from one lab to another. For example one of my hematology books lists the reference ranges for WBCs from 4.1-10.9. A lot of facilities use 10.0 as the high normal reference range. What's more concerning to me is that the lab has calculated your Absolute Neutrophil Count (ANC) incorrectly while your lymphocyte count & monocyte counts are correct. Your actual ANC based on your WBCs & the percentage of Neutrophils should be 2.33. Did you transcribe it correctly? If your ANC was less than 1.0 then you would be considered neutropenic, which would be a bad thing.

[Jay]

I wouldn't worry too much about your WBCs, so long as your physician is not, as lab reference ranges are differ slightly from one lab to another. For example one of my hematology books lists the reference ranges for WBCs from 4.1-10.9. A lot of facilities use 10.0 as the high normal reference range. What's more concerning to me is that the lab has calculated your Absolute Neutrophil Count (ANC) incorrectly while your lymphocyte count & monocyte counts are correct. Your actual ANC based on your WBCs & the percentage of Neutrophils should be 2.33. Did you transcribe it correctly? If your ANC was less than 1.0 then you would be considered neutropenic, which would be a bad thing.

[/quote]


You are quite correct, I transcribed incorrectly. My ANC was indeed 2.3. Thank you for your careful review.