But back to the original question. You've got to know where you are in order to figure out where you're headed. As luck would have it, a cross-sectional evaluation of a community dwelling cohort was published in Archives of Internal Medicine earlier this week in which the authors concluded that there's no reason to fast prior to checking cholesterol. Granted, they had a lot of data by studying the results of 209,180 men & women (avg 53yo) relative to their last meal versus their blood draw. As expected, LDL did not vary by more than 10% depending upon meal time. Surprisingly (for me), Triglycerides only varied by no more than 20% depending upon meal time.
Remember that when you calculate your risk for a heart attack over the next 10 years, regardless of whether you use the Framingham calculator or Reynolds Risk Score, we're focused on meeting an LDL goal first. HDL & Triglycerides are secondary goals. And truthfully, over the last year or so, numerous studies have shown that nothing we throw at them, whether niacin or fenofibrate, makes a difference to event rates, what really counts to you and me. So if that's the case, perhaps the accuracy of your Triglycerides doesn't really matter as much, seeing that we can't seem to do anything about it anyway. In which case, there's no reason to postpone & fast for your cholesterol blood test, right?
Except that checking your glucose (sugar) for diabetes is always a good idea and definitely requires you to be fasting . . .
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment