Guest guest Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 Thanks very much for the conversion details. From a very rough calculation I did I thought the ratio was not too bad, which was why I wanted the exact conversion details. The patient was due for a cholesterol test so I asked her to get all readings rather than just Total Cholesterol - and she said they didn't want to do it but she insisted! Thanks again. If anyone else has any ideas, would be interested to hear from you. Liz Lillicrap, North Devon Re: Cholesterol levels > Dear Liz, > > I have a note of conversion factors being as follows: > > Cholesterol 1 mmol/L = 38.67 mg/dL > Triglyceride 1 mmol/L = 88.57 mg/dL > > or > > Cholesterol 1 mg/dL = 0.02586 mmol/L > Triglyceride 1 mg/dL = 0.01129 mmol/L > > A way to verify that the numbers seem logical is to use the Friedwald > equation for calculating LDL-cholesterol (but only if triglycerides < > 400 mg/dL) > LDL = TC - HDL - Triglycerides/5 (4.8 so about on par) > > but don't ask me to do the maths :-) > > HDL should be over 1.03 mmol/L for males > Triglycerides should be less than 1.7 mmol/L > and the ratios should be as follows for good health factors: > > TC/HDL less than 4 (2.6) > LDL/HDL less than 3 (1.4) > Trig/HDL less than 2 (0.53) > > So the ratios are actually quite impressive even though total > cholesterol seems high. (And from previous postings you can see that I > don't tend to see cholesterol per se as the big bad wolf it's made out > to be.) > > > Hope that is of help, > > MNIMH, MCThA. Staffordshire > > In message <000901c616da$944a0b80$0201a8c0@duron1100>, Liz Lillicrap > writes > >I have a patient with high cholesterol levels - also high blood pressure. > > > >The readings are:- > > > >Total Cholesterol 7.9 mmol/l > >Triglycerides 1.6 mmol/l > >HDL 3.0 mmol/l > >LDL 4.2 mmol/l > > > >All the information I can find gives calculations for HDL:LDL ratio in mg/dl > >and I can't remember how to convert to mmol/l and vice versa. > > > >Can anybody help, please. > > > >Liz Lillicrap > > > > > >List Owner: Graham White, MNIMH > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 Liz, I'm glad the info was useful. It can be difficult to get a comprehensive lipid test done, which is silly because the total cholesterol number is not the full story. But no doubt it is down to costs. Another interesting point is that GPs and practice nurses may not necessarily be recommending statins, as a result of these incomplete tests, for the patient's good on health terms alone. My husband had his most recent blood work test results. Everything is going in the right direction and improving slowly. He is being quite conscientious about what he eats and getting in his exercise. The practice nurse looked at his trigs, down from a high point of 4.4 to 2.4 over the last 12 months and said she'd like him to lower them even more quickly. She wanted to double his dose of Simvastatin from 20 mg to 40 mg a day. He reminded her that he had told her the week before that he wasn't taking it, relying on the lifestyle changes as they have little or no side effects. He suggested she might like to read the 'Cholesterol Myths' by Ravnskov, either the book or in a condensed version on his website (http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm - iIn fact a link leads to a report by him that 'High cholesterol may protect against infections and atherosclerosis.' I've downloaded it and must read it when I have a few minutes and add it to my 2nd lever arch file of papers on cholesterol to be sorted and filed). The practice nurses's response to that was along the lines of 'Well that's all well and good but does nothing for my audit figures.' !!! So it seems that medicine today is decided more by audit figures and suchlike rather than what is good for the patient. I've suspected that this is the case but for the practice nurse to come straight out with it leaves me rather flabbergasted. A non-intrusive, no side-effects preventative measure, i.e. eating what is suitable for your personal metabolism, and getting in exercise is dismissed, but there must presumably be certain levels of Simvastatin uptake that each GP must reach. I don't know if any of our GP herbalists have any input on this or whether it is just our particular surgery's take on the subject. It is also interesting that my late father, who had hypercholesterolaemia for as long as I can remember, in the post mortem report, showed very little sign of coronary artery or cardiovascular disease. Didn't show the supposed brain tumour cum skullbase osteomyelitis the consultants decided were the cause of his terminal illness either. In fact, it appeared that apart from being terribly wasted, the pathologist could not tell what it was that he had been suffering from for 8 long months until a brain haemorrhage caused his death. From the arrogant attitudes of one of the consultants to the fact that they could not make up their minds what the problem was, but would not admit it, none of this did very much to give me much faith and confidence in the modern medical profession. Regards, Staffordshire In message <005701c6174e$67e42250$0201a8c0@duron1100>, Liz Lillicrap writes > > >Thanks very much for the conversion details. From a very rough calculation >I did I thought the ratio was not too bad, which was why I wanted the exact >conversion details. The patient was due for a cholesterol test so I asked >her to get all readings rather than just Total Cholesterol - and she said >they didn't want to do it but she insisted! > >Thanks again. > >If anyone else has any ideas, would be interested to hear from you. > >Liz Lillicrap, North Devon > > Re: Cholesterol levels > > >> Dear Liz, >> >> I have a note of conversion factors being as follows: >> >> Cholesterol 1 mmol/L = 38.67 mg/dL >> Triglyceride 1 mmol/L = 88.57 mg/dL >> >> or >> >> Cholesterol 1 mg/dL = 0.02586 mmol/L >> Triglyceride 1 mg/dL = 0.01129 mmol/L >> >> A way to verify that the numbers seem logical is to use the Friedwald >> equation for calculating LDL-cholesterol (but only if triglycerides < >> 400 mg/dL) >> LDL = TC - HDL - Triglycerides/5 (4.8 so about on par) >> >> but don't ask me to do the maths :-) >> >> HDL should be over 1.03 mmol/L for males >> Triglycerides should be less than 1.7 mmol/L >> and the ratios should be as follows for good health factors: >> >> TC/HDL less than 4 (2.6) >> LDL/HDL less than 3 (1.4) >> Trig/HDL less than 2 (0.53) >> >> So the ratios are actually quite impressive even though total >> cholesterol seems high. (And from previous postings you can see that I >> don't tend to see cholesterol per se as the big bad wolf it's made out >> to be.) >> >> >> Hope that is of help, >> >> MNIMH, MCThA. Staffordshire >> >> In message <000901c616da$944a0b80$0201a8c0@duron1100>, Liz Lillicrap >> writes >> >I have a patient with high cholesterol levels - also high blood pressure. >> > >> >The readings are:- >> > >> >Total Cholesterol 7.9 mmol/l >> >Triglycerides 1.6 mmol/l >> >HDL 3.0 mmol/l >> >LDL 4.2 mmol/l >> > >> >All the information I can find gives calculations for HDL:LDL ratio in >mg/dl >> >and I can't remember how to convert to mmol/l and vice versa. >> > >> >Can anybody help, please. >> > >> >Liz Lillicrap >> > >> > >> >List Owner: Graham White, MNIMH >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.