health screenings & cholesterol numbers

The company I work for offers free health screenings to employees every year or so. In the past, nurses from a local medical center would come onsite to do the screenings, which included blood draws for the lipid, iron, and glucose level tests.

This year, I missed out on the onsite screenings. But I got a voucher for a free screening at Walgreens (a pharmacy chain). So I did that today. Unlike the prior screenings, these tests were done via finger-pricks rather than blood draws, and the results were available right away, rather than a few weeks later.

During the years 2005 thru 2012, my numbers were in the following ranges (mg/dL):
Total Cholesterol: 121 - 133
Triglyceride: 29 - 64
HDL Cholesterol: 47 - 59
LDL: 62 - 72
VLDL: 6 - 13

The HDL + LDL + VLDL numbers equal the Total Cholesterol numbers.

I was first screened in 2002, and I skipped the next 2 years. For whatever reason, my LDL was quite a bit higher in 2002:
Total Cholesterol: 151
Triglyceride: 60
HDL: 49
LDL: 90
VLDL: 12


Today's results showed an even higher LDL value, 96. That caught my attention, as it is near the high range of optimal (<100). Then I noticed that today's results don't include VLDL. Then I noticed that today's numbers don't even add up (how could HDL + LDL > TC ??)... The sheet says:
Total Cholesterol: 121
HDL: 52
TRG: 45
LDL: 96

Hmmm.. 121 - 52 = 69. The nurse must have transposed 69 to 96 when she wrote the LDL number down. In fact, I remember looking at the machine that had analyzed my finger-prick blood sample, and seeing it display "N/A" under LDL. The nurse must have been doing arithmetic in her head.

Anyway, so this year's real LDL + VLDL number is likely 69, so rather than it being much worse than the other years, it is slightly better.

Then again, this page says:

There may be several reasons for an LDL cholesterol result of N/A. The LDL cholesterol is calculated as follows: LDL=(TC-HDL-TRG/5). If the triglyceride result is >400 mg/dL (>4.51 mmol/L), the calculated LDL cholesterol will not be accurate and the LDL result will be reported as N/A. If the TC, HDL or TRG results are outside the measuring range of the instrument, the LDL will also not be calculated and will be reported as N/A.

So maybe today's LDL number isn't reliable at all.

Hmmm... for all the prior years, VLDL = Triglyceride/5.
It appears that the VLDL and LDL numbers are always calculated, rather than measured. Only the Total Cholesterol, HDL, and Triglyceride levels are actually measured.

Today's test didn't measure my iron level. In the previous years, it ranged from 89 to 138, all within normal limits.

My blood pressure tends to be on the low side. Today it was 90/65. The highest one from prior years was 107/73.

more on cholesterol numbers & possible relation to veganism

My 2002 LDL level was still in the optimal range of under 100. But it occurs to me that my 2002 LDL number may have been higher than in later years, as back then a lot of processed foods contained trans-fats.

Supposedly, trans-fats raise LDL (the "bad" cholesterol) levels and lower HDL (the "good" one). Due to being vegan since high school, I avoided products with animal fats; but that meant that a lot of the processed foods I ate had trans-fats in them instead. My reasons for becoming vegan were ethical rather than health-related, and I've never been particularly concerned with avoiding processed foods.

Curiously, I had a physical done in 1991, and I recall the doctor back then telling me that my cholesterol was somewhat high. I found that odd, as I didn't eat any animal products, and had been vegan for nearly 4 years already. However, I also knew that the body produced its own cholesterol, so it didn't concern me. I wasn't given the actual numbers, and the level must have still been within acceptable levels, as nothing further was mentioned about it.

I'm not sure when exactly trans-fats started being phased out. It was a concern already in 2005, but FDA labeling requirements for trans-fats weren't put in place until 2006. Likewise, trans-fats weren't removed from Oreo cookies until January 2006, and from certain other products until even later. So could that really explain the big difference between my 2002 and 2005 LDL levels? Perhaps companies marketing "health/natural" food products phased out trans-fats earlier than other companies?

However, my HDL levels don't support the hypothesis either. The 2002 number was 49, and the 2005 thru 2013 levels were 51, 52, 47, 53, 59, 57, 52 - no clear pattern.

I wish I had my actual numbers from 1991. That would be interesting. But I'm sure all my old medical records have been destroyed by now, as I never bothered getting a copy of them after graduating from university.

I also wish I could remember the purported reason for me getting that physical done in 1991. I think my eye doctor requested it... that was when I was being treated for a long-term eye infection. I remember agreeing to the physical, but refusing the pap smear part of it. It seems very strange that the Insurance explanation of benefits forms (which I still do have) for the physical describe 2 of the charges as "Outpatient Psychiatric". Did the eye doctor think I had a psychiatric problem, because of my introverted manner? Was it not so much a physical as a psychiatric evaluation along with a physical? Did the doctor avoid telling me it was a psychiatric evaluation? I surely don't remember being told that. Or are psychiatric evaluations a normal part of a physical?

pfthooey

Jeez. One little miscalculation while pulling up a dandelion can result in dirt flying everywhere, sticking to sweaty arms, legs, and face; getting into mouth, gloves, and shoes. Now I need to take another shower.

Using a dedicated weed-pulling tool does work much easier than a shovel though.

half jibberish

Transcribing those 2 videos of mine.
Gosh, what a bunch of unfinished sentences, partial thoughts, seemingly abrupt switch of topics, extra words that don't belong... stuff that I don't notice until I'm reading back what I said.

It's amazing how anyone can make sense of my words, when I speak like that.

I wonder if I were to transcribe other people's videos, if I'd find that their speech was like that too. Or if some people actually speak in complete, sensible, sentences.