PDA

View Full Version : Blood Test Results for Review



aidan
02-24-2005, 05:45 AM
erp7e,
sorry mate, these are the full results, don't know what 90% of this stuff means. The limits are after the UOM as per the report.The doc just said I am in great health. :eek:

Renal Limits
Sodium 139 mmol/L 135-145
Potassium 4 mmol/L 3.5-5.6
Chloride 104 mmol/L 99-108
Bicarbonate 24 mmol/L 23-33
Urea 9.6 mmol/L 2.1-9
Creatinine 85 μmol/L 50-110

Lipids
Total Cholesterol 3.4 mmol/L 3.9-5.5
Triglycerides 1.6 mmol/L 0.5-1.7
HDL Chol 1.6 mmol/L 0.8-1.7
Calc LDL Chol 1.1 mmol/L 1.7-3.5

Ferritin 114 μg/L 30-300

Bilirubin 11 μmol/L 0-20
ALP (Alk Phos) 111 U/L 30-115
GGT (GammaGT) 21 U/L 0-45
LD (LDH) 173 U/L 100-225
AST (SGOT) 30 U/L 0-40
ALT (SGPT) 28 U/L 0-40
T-Protein 75 g/L 60-80
Albumin 47 g/L 38-55
Globulin 28 g/L 20-32

Glucose 3.3 mmol/L 3.6-6

Testosterone 10.5 nmol/L 8.0-38.0

Full Blood Count
HB 150 g/L 130-180
WCC 6.2 x10^9/L 4-11
PLTC 184 x10^9/L 150-450
RCC 5.02 x10^12/L 4.3-6.2
HCT 0.44 ratio 0.38-0.54
MCV 87.5 fL 80-100
MCH 29.9 pg 27-32
MCHC 342 g/L 310-360
RDW 42 fL 35-50

Neutrophils 54.4% 3.4 x10^9/L 2-7.5
Lympocytes 32.5% 2 x10^9/L 1-4
Moncytes 8.4% 0.5 x10^9/L 0-1
Eosinophils 4.2% 0.3 x10^9/L 0-0.5
Basophils 0.5% 0 x10^9/L 0-0.3

Vitamin B12 468 pmol/L 145-637
Folate Red Cell 1527 nmol/L 776-1784

WillBrink
02-24-2005, 03:20 PM
erp7e,
sorry mate, these are the full results, don't know what 90% of this stuff means. The limits are after the UOM as per the report.The doc just said I am in great health. :eek:

Renal Limits
Sodium 139 mmol/L 135-145
Potassium 4 mmol/L 3.5-5.6
Chloride 104 mmol/L 99-108
Bicarbonate 24 mmol/L 23-33
Urea 9.6 mmol/L 2.1-9
Creatinine 85 ?mol/L 50-110

Lipids
Total Cholesterol 3.4 mmol/L 3.9-5.5
Triglycerides 1.6 mmol/L 0.5-1.7
HDL Chol 1.6 mmol/L 0.8-1.7
Calc LDL Chol 1.1 mmol/L 1.7-3.5

Ferritin 114 ?g/L 30-300

Bilirubin 11 ?mol/L 0-20
ALP (Alk Phos) 111 U/L 30-115
GGT (GammaGT) 21 U/L 0-45
LD (LDH) 173 U/L 100-225
AST (SGOT) 30 U/L 0-40
ALT (SGPT) 28 U/L 0-40
T-Protein 75 g/L 60-80
Albumin 47 g/L 38-55
Globulin 28 g/L 20-32

Glucose 3.3 mmol/L 3.6-6

Testosterone 10.5 nmol/L 8.0-38.0

Full Blood Count
HB 150 g/L 130-180
WCC 6.2 x10^9/L 4-11
PLTC 184 x10^9/L 150-450
RCC 5.02 x10^12/L 4.3-6.2
HCT 0.44 ratio 0.38-0.54
MCV 87.5 fL 80-100
MCH 29.9 pg 27-32
MCHC 342 g/L 310-360
RDW 42 fL 35-50

Neutrophils 54.4% 3.4 x10^9/L 2-7.5
Lympocytes 32.5% 2 x10^9/L 1-4
Moncytes 8.4% 0.5 x10^9/L 0-1
Eosinophils 4.2% 0.3 x10^9/L 0-0.5
Basophils 0.5% 0 x10^9/L 0-0.3

Vitamin B12 468 pmol/L 145-637
Folate Red Cell 1527 nmol/L 776-1784

From what I see, it all looks good. However, the one that jumps out at me is your testosterone. If the range is 8.0-38.0 and you are 10.5, then you are at the very bottom of low normal. See my comments in my article on blood work for my thoughts on that. Odd they didn't test free T, which is important for the overall picture. Some of these, like PLTC don't ring a bell for me.They might for Erp.

elissalowe
02-24-2005, 04:00 PM
Methinks PLTC = platelet count

erp7e
02-24-2005, 11:17 PM
Looks fine to me, although I agree with Will about talking to your doc about a more comprehensive testosterone panel (including free T) and discussing the possibility of therapeutic options (or referal to an endocrinologist who will). For your and everyone's reference, here's what the complete blood count abbreviations stand for:

HB= hemoglobin
WCC= white blood cell count
PLTC= platelet count
RCC= red blood cell count
HCT= hematocrit (calculated--again this is the percentage of space taken up by RBCs)
MCV= mean corpuscular volume (calculated from HCT/RBC - this is the average volume of your RBCs. This is useful as one step in differentiating anemias; for example, iron deficiency anemia is generally a microcytic anemia and will tend to have a low MCV, etc.)
MCH= mean corpuscular hemoglobin (calculated from HB/RBC - this is the average amount of HB in your RBCs)
MCHC= mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (calculated from MCH/MCV - tells you the percentage of an average RBC that is taken up by hemoglobin - in this case it lets you know how adequately filled with hemoglobin your RBCs are - so in Fe def anemia again, you would have not only a microcytic, but a hypochromic (low HB/cell) anemia)
RDW= red cell distribution width (this is variability - it would be increased if you had widely varying sizes of RBCs - sort of the same concept as a standard deviation)

So I guess medical education occaisionally comes in useful.

erp7e
02-24-2005, 11:20 PM
Any other questions on what your blood tests mean let me know, aiden.

aidan
02-25-2005, 12:06 AM
thanks guys, much appreciated and very comprehensive as usual. I'm a bit worried though when you say "therapeutic options (or referal to an endocrinologist who will)." What do you mean by these 'options'? Is it something to worry about? How dramatic is HRT???

I just read your article again Will, citing the case of the sprinter and his diet, my diet for the past 2 months has been very good, ratios have been 30-35% Protein, 40-45% Carb and 25-30% Fat. Using the diet planner its usually on the high side of proteins and low side of carbs. Adopting the 1/3 rule of saturated fat I think is quite difficult to nail down but I would be fairly confident that I consume close to the requirements.

I'm 28, currently 79kgs, 8.8% Bf and in reasonable shape. I do find though that I have to work hard for results, my libido could be better and I am quite moody sometimes. I have to say guys, I'm quite worried about this! :(

WillBrink
02-25-2005, 03:01 PM
thanks guys, much appreciated and very comprehensive as usual. I'm a bit worried though when you say "therapeutic options (or referal to an endocrinologist who will)." What do you mean by these 'options'? Is it something to worry about? How dramatic is HRT???

I just read your article again Will, citing the case of the sprinter and his diet, my diet for the past 2 months has been very good, ratios have been 30-35% Protein, 40-45% Carb and 25-30% Fat. Using the diet planner its usually on the high side of proteins and low side of carbs. Adopting the 1/3 rule of saturated fat I think is quite difficult to nail down but I would be fairly confident that I consume close to the requirements.

I'm 28, currently 79kgs, 8.8% Bf and in reasonable shape. I do find though that I have to work hard for results, my libido could be better and I am quite moody sometimes. I have to say guys, I'm quite worried about this! :(

There is not much I can add here beyond what I outlined in the article on blood work. If you feel your T levels are not an issue, that is you are not suffering the effects of low T: tendency to add BF, lack of sex drive, loss of muscle, mood changes/depression, etc., then there is no particular reason to change it, unless you want to optimize your LBM and strength via higher T levels. If you do feel that perhaps your low normal/ sub-clinical levels may be related to any of the above, then as Erp recommends, you might want to follow up with an experienced MD and or endocrinologist to see what your options are.

erp7e
02-27-2005, 07:20 PM
If your T is low or borderline low, and you can demonstrate clinical effects of it, AND you care (i.e., if it isn't bothering you, there is no medical urgency to do something about it!), there are some PCPs out there, and more likely, many endocrinologists, who are open-minded to testosterone replacement therapy. It is unlikely to come in Ronnie Coleman dosages, but it may help somewhat. Just look at it as an option, if it's something you'd like to pursue. Going to the endocrinologist doesn't mean you'd get T replacement, it would just be to discuss your situation. We docs are here for discussing treatment options and advising on individual situations, not just dispensing pills!

aidan
10-17-2005, 02:15 AM
Got the results of my Sex Hormone Blood test, if you guys could have a look I'd appreciate it. Test was performed at 8am in a fasted state.

-Testosterone 18.7nmol/L (8-38)
-Sex Hormone Binding Globulin 26nmol/L (10-50)
-Free Androgen Index 72% (20-130)
-C-Reactive Protein 0.7 mg/L (0-5)
(high Sensitivity)
-Iron 22.9 μmol/L (9-31)
-Transferrin 2.4 g/L (2-3.7)
-TIBC (Calculated) 53μmol/L (45-80)
-Saturation 43%
-Ferritin 134μg/L (30-300)

-Thyroid: TSH 1.57 mlU/L (0.3-4)

-Blood Count was Normal

-ESR 1mm/hr (0-20)

-Plasma Glucose 4.9mmol/L (3.6-6)

-Oestradiol 117 pmol/L (MALE <160)
using Roche method

erp7e
10-17-2005, 04:03 AM
From these tests, you appear to be male. Look down, and if you see a penis, all is well. :D

Just messing with you man. But there appears to be no testosterone deficiency.

aidan
10-17-2005, 07:19 AM
what do these results tell you? Are my test levels just normal or low normal? Dont understand the rest of the results, can u give me a little explanation please? Is there anything I can work on? For example, I presume the estradiol is the estrogen, is this on the high side, I could get maybe 6-Oxo to keep it down or something along those lines? Thanks.
Sorry for all the questions but I'm trying to interpret the results as Will did in his blood article.

erp7e
10-22-2005, 12:35 AM
In all seriousness, your results look fine. I don't think there is a hormonal issue present. 6-OXO is an option, but I don't think it would be correcting any gross pathology here.

James Abernathy
10-30-2005, 02:25 AM
Please allow me to make a few observations; I am a hormone specialist in the longevity medicine field.

Regarding those blood draw results, there are a lot of panels missing that should be provided.
one testosterone panel is not enough to warrant a clinical intervention but I would say the testosterone level is too low. Also, the absorption of testosterone is a critical thing. You can take a lot of testosterone products but if they arent getting into one's system it is a dangerous waste. The panel for this measure is called LH, luteinizing hormone. Next, I would recommend a cap on the estradiol, which can be easily accomplished through several medications. I would recommend obtaining the IGF 1, DHEA, and perhaps a pregnenolone panels. This will give you a better understanding of what is NOT happening very well, in your system. Dont forget the thryoid panels. The endocrine system is complicated and there are lots of ways to interpret treatment for deficient hormone levels. I would NOT arbitrarily go and use prohormone products without competent advice.

THe other values look reasonable in the blood draw results.

erp7e
11-01-2005, 04:28 AM
1) On what basis is this testosterone level too low? Relative to what population norm? One can always say a number is too low or too high but lab results are given with respect to population norms. These are based on data collected over time and not subjective opinions.

2) To grossly oversimplify, luteinizing hormone leads to testosterone release. It does not have anything to do with testosterone "absorption." I feel this is misleading information. Where is the testosterone being "absorbed" from? Testosterone acts on cells at androgen receptors within the cell. LH does not affect this process; it stimulates (again, oversimplification) the testes to produce testosterone. Free testosterone can be affected by binding by Sex Hormone Binding Globulin (SHBG), lowering the amount of total T that is unbound and free T, however a free T level was given here.

I can appreciate your perspective on other statements, but I feel the need to clarify when information is given that is not accurate.

James Abernathy
11-01-2005, 05:39 AM
I think a great many physicians that are credentialed in endocrinology would find the information posted above as sufficient enough to explain these ideas to lay people. It is a gross and erroneous generalization to say that this information is inaccurate. Most scholars in this arena remain a bit perplexed by all this science, and have greater difficulty understanding the point even moreso than lay people at times. The intention of posting this was to provide additional angles of opportunity to the readers to understand what they need to be aware of, if they are dabbling with hormones. Considering that I have taught over 500 hundred physicians in the last few years made me painfully aware that information needs to be simple or else it will never help anyone.

aidan
11-01-2005, 06:53 AM
Thanks for your reply James but I find this information somewhat confusing. I spoke directly with an endocrinologist who assesed these results and he said that "there was nothing to worry about" and that my results were "perfectly normal". He also stated that I would be wasting my money going to see him as there is no deficiency anywhere in my results.

James Abernathy
11-01-2005, 07:02 AM
This is a typical response from a traditional practitioner. In general, the ranges of what is normal and usual is based on criteria that is becoming obsolete within certain areas of the medical industry. Anti-aging specialists for example, have a different range of values that are used for treatment which narrows the window of what is considered normal and healthy. This is in the context of managing age and the disease associated with age. From an anti-aging orientation, the range of what is heathy for an aging male is therefore different at times. In other words, better levels of testosterone are higher, thyroid scores are tighter, estradiol is lower, etc. So, from this perspective, all levels are assessed a little differently. If I had listened to every endocrinologist that reviewed my own thyroid condition, I would have a very miserable condition to live with. I would suggest that you seek out the review of a highly recommended anti-aging professional for another opinion. You can find a nationwide list at worldhealth.net or search for anti-aging clinics on-line.

James Abernathy
11-01-2005, 07:18 AM
Also I wanted to point out that for a good and fair minded approach to men's hormonal health, you should seek out a practitioner who is comfortable with hormone modulation for men. There is a lot of avoidance and evasion from doctors about this area of treatment. There are some very forthright and open minded practitioners that do understand how to orchestrate a synergistic hormone program for men, as well as women, but you need to check out their practices and values. The medical process of managing hormones is changing, but not with many of the old-school physicians that want to preserve their platforms. There are also many good contemporary books that responsibly address hormone modulation that takes things to a normal place.

elissalowe
11-01-2005, 01:10 PM
I think a great many physicians that are credentialed in endocrinology would find the information posted above as sufficient enough to explain these ideas to lay people. It is a gross and erroneous generalization to say that this information is inaccurate. Most scholars in this arena remain a bit perplexed by all this science, and have greater difficulty understanding the point even moreso than lay people at times. The intention of posting this was to provide additional angles of opportunity to the readers to understand what they need to be aware of, if they are dabbling with hormones. Considering that I have taught over 500 hundred physicians in the last few years made me painfully aware that information needs to be simple or else it will never help anyone.
Horse hockey.

This is not how MBN works: what Will, erp7e, and I try to do here is to provide descriptive information that is empowering - not prescriptive information that encourages dependency. Critical thinking is what drives this site. IMO, my "expert" opinions aren't worth jack, if I can't explain my thinking in whatever detail that's required.

Appeals to authority, such as "...a great many physicians that are credentialed in endocrinology would find...", "Most scholars in this arena...", and "I have taught over 500 hundred physicians..." are similar to the tactics used by supplement companies and sales-motivated "gurus" to convince customers to purchase their products/services. In my experience, even the most abstruse concepts can be readily understood if they're properly explained. Will, erp7e, and I don't ask people to believe us because we know better than "lay people" do. Instead, they believe us because we work hard and respect their intelligence.

WillBrink
11-01-2005, 03:47 PM
Thanks for your reply James but I find this information somewhat confusing. I spoke directly with an endocrinologist who assesed these results and he said that "there was nothing to worry about" and that my results were "perfectly normal". He also stated that I would be wasting my money going to see him as there is no deficiency anywhere in my results.



Aidan, your experience does not necessarily counter what James is saying. If you read my article on the topic of hormone testing, you know my opinion of doctors who brush people off with the overly general “your tests were normal” response. In your case, the results look more or less satisfactory as Erp pointed out (e.g., there is no outward deficiency per se) but may not be optimal for you and your goals. For that, it requires some research and finding a physician willing to work with you on attempting optima vs “normal.” I too work with an endocrinologist who I find to be quite competent, but optimizing people’s hormones vs treating frank deficiencies is simply not in his lexicon, but he’s learning! :D

WillBrink
11-01-2005, 04:00 PM
This is a typical response from a traditional practitioner. In general, the ranges of what is normal and usual is based on criteria that is becoming obsolete within certain areas of the medical industry. Anti-aging specialists for example, have a different range of values that are used for treatment which narrows the window of what is considered normal and healthy. This is in the context of managing age and the disease associated with age. From an anti-aging orientation, the range of what is heathy for an aging male is therefore different at times. In other words, better levels of testosterone are higher, thyroid scores are tighter, estradiol is lower, etc. So, from this perspective, all levels are assessed a little differently. If I had listened to every endocrinologist that reviewed my own thyroid condition, I would have a very miserable condition to live with. I would suggest that you seek out the review of a highly recommended anti-aging professional for another opinion. You can find a nationwide list at worldhealth.net or search for anti-aging clinics on-line.

I agree more or less with your comments, but I do find things are improving in this area quickly. For example, they greatly reduced the recommended TSH levels as evidence finds it improves health. Testosterone prescription for men are booming, etc, etc. It’s also region specific I have noticed, with docs in the north east being much more conservative in their approach then docs from areas such as FL, CA, and NV where anti aging/longevity medicine is a more accepted concept. As interested as we all are in the topic (my write up on optimizing hormones levels can be found here: http://www.brinkzone.com/itsinyourblood.html ) you will also find people here will call you to task if advice is not backed up by some solid data and or supportable hypothesis. “In my clinical experience” is fine as a qualifier, but “it’s a fact that low testosterone levels leads to brain tumors which I concluded from my clinical experience” is not. HRT is still a young science, but of course the bodybuilding community is at least 20 years ahead of the curve on that topic as manipulating hormones to achieve specific effects, is the focus for them. I have always attempted to bridge the gap so top speak between them.

erp7e
11-01-2005, 08:04 PM
James,

I disagree. What I'm refering to here is your outright wrong explanation of LH's role in the HPG axis. As I understand it you are sticking by your absorption statement? If so, please explain. You can simplify without giving incorrect information. I do it all the time. E.g. "LH causes testosterone release." An oversimplification without lying or making up hokey-science.

And again, if you call a level 'low,' to what norm are you comparing? Like I say, if you want to call something 'low,' it is just your opinion until you have some data to back it.

Essentially you did not address directly either comment I made. As mentioned, you can give opinions but do not mislead members with incorrect explanations of things.

aidan
11-02-2005, 01:19 AM
Fisrt up please forgive the ignorance of this reply but this is how I feel at the moment on this subject. I appreciate all of your comments but at the end of the day who is optimal in these departments besides genetic freaks. As long as my test results are healthy (or normal) then I'm happy to continue as I am. I'm 80kgs, low bodyfat and healthy. I want to add some more size but that will come with time, nutrition, training and the advise on this forum. Of course things would be great if my T levels et al were at optimal levels but who wouldn't want this??? I work 40hrs a week, have a great partner, good friends, social life and enjoy the gym and its benefits, I don't have designs on becoming a bodybuilder. Where do we draw the line here? HRT for a 29 yr old male in good physical condition because his T levels could be a few points higher?
Will, your article on blood work is a real wake up call for a lot of us who spend hours at the gym, watch our diets etc while getting minimal results. Your comments and erp7e's comments on my blood work are very much appreciated in interpeting my results and with the knowledge I have received from these results via you guys, I feel confident that my body is performing well. Not perfect, but as well as any other normal person.

James Abernathy
11-02-2005, 07:08 AM
Thanks for your comments; they are very clear and positive. I would agree, that someone at age 27 in good shape should not be a candidate for HRT. The work I mostly support is for everyday people, not just athletes or bodybuilders. There are a lot of ways to optimize your mind and body without using random amounts of testosterone. I really encourage people to be very careful and use a lot of discernment about HRT.