help me understand ALT, I have read the wiki twice
Genuine question, and the title is the question: help me understand ALT, I have read the wiki twice.
Panicked about a single result, posted here, got told to repeat it, repeated it, and it was fine.
Tracked triglycerides against the weight trend for a year. The correlation was much weaker than I expected and that was worth knowing.
ApoB counts atherogenic particles rather than the cholesterol they carry, which is why it can diverge from LDL-C and why it is the addition most worth making.
If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something. Alone it is an anecdote.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Nobody here can interpret your panel and this comment is not doing so. What a board can usefully do is help you ask better questions of somebody who can.
Took a baseline the week before starting purely because this board told me to. Best five minutes I have spent on this.
Have you taken this to whoever ordered it?
Nobody here can interpret your panel and this comment is not doing so.
santiago_rasmussen is right that a reference interval is not a target. It is a description of a population.
What did the repeat show?
Fasting or not, and what time of day?
Fasting or not, and what time of day?
Disagreeing with this bit: that change is confounded by the weight loss itself and cannot be attributed.
Standing reminder: nobody here interprets your results, and posts asking us to get a pointer to somebody who can.
Time of day, fasting state, hydration and recent exercise all move common markers. Standardising the draw conditions is free and it removes most of the apparent variability.
a single ApoB outside range is a reason to repeat, not to panic
a single ApoB outside range is a reason to repeat, not to panic
Agreed — and standardising the draw conditions is the cheapest improvement available.
This. Reference ranges are population intervals, not targets, and conflating them causes a lot of unnecessary alarm here.
ApoB is the one worth adding if you only add one
Small fix — a reference interval is not a treatment target, and the post above uses them interchangeably.
That comparison crosses two labs with different assays. The difference you are describing may be the method.
Same lab as the previous draw?
Cosigning on baseline. The panel I regret most is the one I did not take before starting.
lab reference ranges are not treatment targets
Repeat testing before acting is standard practice for a reason: regression to the mean does a lot of work on single outlying values.
Reference intervals are typically the central 95% of a reference population. By construction one person in twenty falls outside one on any given test without anything being wrong.
Yes. Repeat before you react. Almost every alarming single value I have posted here regressed on the repeat.
Disagree with reading anything into that. One value, one morning, and you changed two other things in the same window.
I would not draw a line through two points, especially when the second was taken at a different time of day.
baseline before you start is worth more than any later panel
- 1Nobody here can interpret your panel and this comment is not doing so. What…7 comments in this branch · started by u/santiago_rasmussen
- 2lab reference ranges are not treatment targets7 comments in this branch · started by u/thermal_mass_tom