High stool triglycerides

[Guest guest]

Does anyone know the implications of high triglycerides

on a (DDI) comprehensive stool analysis (result is 978,

range <= 400)? None of the other markers related to fat

malabsorption are out of range. Everything else on the

test is very normal, except some imbalanced flora.

Maybe I just ate a lot of fat in the days prior to the

test? (I don't recall doing so, but that seems like one

possible explanation for the result.)

My doctor is recommending lipase. I do take a good

broad-spectrum digestive enzyme, which contains lipase,

but she feels I need more than this.

Any comments, suggestions?

--

[Guest guest]

> > Does anyone know the implications of high triglycerides

> > on a (DDI) comprehensive stool analysis (result is 978,

> > range <= 400)?

>

> Yes it means you aren't digesting fat very well. So maldigestion and

> possible dysbiosis.

I do believe I have some dysbiosis though I generally manage it

well (symptoms were far worse before I followed a careful diet).

> > None of the other markers related to fat

> > malabsorption are out of range.

>

> What other markers related to fat absorption are there on your test? I

> only ask because on my GSDL test the only fat absorption marker is

> triglycerides (mine were slightly out of range btw).

The commentary with my test results indicates that several other

markers should be taken into account including steatocrit, elastase,

muscle and vegetable fibers. These were all normal on my test.

> > Everything else on the test is very normal, except some imbalanced

> flora.

>

> That was the same for me. I have severe dysbiosis.

How have you determined this - did you test for antibodies or some

other testing? I certainly get dysbiosis symptoms if I eat sugar,

gluten, yeast, etc, but I manage okay symptom-wise as long as I

stick to diet.

In fact, I did eat some sugar before this test to see if I could

get any truly pathogenic stuff to show up (and perhaps identify

appropriate agents to treat), but all I got was the " imbalanced

flora " , including gamma and beta strep and pantoea species. No

" dysbiotic flora " .

> > Maybe I just ate a lot of fat in the days prior to the

> > test? (I don't recall doing so, but that seems like one

> > possible explanation for the result.)

>

> More likely explanations:

> Pancreatic insufficiency, liver stress/bile insufficiency.

My impression is the other markers I listed above

would also be out of range if I truly had pancreatic

insufficiency or bile insufficiency/liver stress. I do

take liver support supps - which I suppose may make some

of these results look more normal.

> > My doctor is recommending lipase. I do take a good

> > broad-spectrum digestive enzyme, which contains lipase,

> > but she feels I need more than this.

> >

> >

> > Any comments, suggestions?

>

> stuff to detox liver and improve bile flow maybe.

>

> .

Maybe I need to take more support than what I am already

taking. I'll have to review the info in Andy's book and

explore this a bit further, I think.

Thanks for your reply - I appreciate your comments.

--

[Guest guest]

" " wrote:

> I do believe I have some dysbiosis though I generally manage it

> well (symptoms were far worse before I followed a careful diet).

ok

> The commentary with my test results indicates that several other

> markers should be taken into account including steatocrit, elastase,

> muscle and vegetable fibers. These were all normal on my test.

Sorry you are right - its the same on my test. Not so much muscle and

vegetable fibers (which are more to do with meat/vegetable digestion)

but steatocrit and cholesterol.

> > > Everything else on the test is very normal, except some

> > > imbalanced flora.

Correction to my earlier post: Unlike your test I *do* have dysbiotic

flora on my test. Sorry I got confused between " imbalanced " and

dysbiotic flora (I had my test done a couple of years ago). I had 2

species of dysbiotic flora show up in high numbers.

> I certainly get dysbiosis symptoms if I eat sugar,

> gluten, yeast, etc, but I manage okay symptom-wise as long as I

> stick to diet.

Thats good you can control it. Just shows that your dysbiosis is mild.

> In fact, I did eat some sugar before this test to see if I could

> get any truly pathogenic stuff to show up (and perhaps identify

> appropriate agents to treat), but all I got was the " imbalanced

> flora " , including gamma and beta strep and pantoea species. No

> " dysbiotic flora " .

That was a great idea to eat sugar. The fact you didn't get any

dysbiotic flora just confirms that any dysbiosis is likely to be mild

and under control.

> > More likely explanations:

> > Pancreatic insufficiency, liver stress/bile insufficiency.

>

> My impression is the other markers I listed above

> would also be out of range if I truly had pancreatic

> insufficiency or bile insufficiency/liver stress.

Quite possibly. I think your triglycerides are high enough on their

own to merit suspicion of fat maldigestion though. GSDL say

" Triglycerides are the major dietary fat component. Elevated

quantitative fecal amounts reflect incomplete fat hydrolysis and

suggest pancreatic insufficiency. "

> I do take liver support supps - which I suppose may make some

> of these results look more normal.

At the end of the day its not a huge deal. Just depends if you feel

its something you want to address.

> Maybe I need to take more support than what I am already

> taking. I'll have to review the info in Andy's book and

> explore this a bit further, I think.

>

> Thanks for your reply - I appreciate your comments.

No problem. Sorry about my initial misreading. I'm clearly running on

fewer brain-cells than I thought.

.