[ultim8k]

That’s BS if I may. How would I know I have higher cholesterol if I didn’t do blood tests?

[belter]

Interestingly, the scenario is somewhat discussed in the article:

"...Rivero used as an example a request he receives frequently: to check the cholesterol of young people with no risk factors. “Checking a 32-year-old man with no history of sudden death or hypercholesterolemia in the family is pointless,” and can result in prescriptions for medication of questionable usefulness and that is not without risk in the event of minor changes..."

[ChancyChance]

But this thought process begs the question: what if this person is the one who STARTS the history of high cholesterol, and subsequent increased heart-related mortality. Or following it the other way, only people with a history of this are at risk? It is statistical: there could be a person with no history who is at risk, the probability is lower, but nonzero.

[boringg]

Cholesterol numbers are but guides/risk factors on your health risk. They do not necessarily mean that you will suffer from atherosclerosis the precursor to heart disease.

[jcims]

I had my family test their blood sugar because we had a test kit sitting around. That's how we found out my youngest was at the beginning states of type 1 diabetes. If we hadn't checked her sugars, she would have undoubtedly been admitted to the hospital under DKA and had a traumatic introduction to her condition.

As it was, nobody, not the local doctors nor the children's hospital in the local metro center, had any idea of what to do with her. We had to repeat our story numerous times and she was admitted for no reason for three days because that was their protocol.

So i think the whole idea is bullshit. Test early, test often and let the practices catch up to the new amount of information.

[watwut]

I think that in that case, the issue is not that patient had checkup, but that standard reaction to high cholesterol is wrong. Having it checked up less often may help the patient, but real fix for healthcare system would be to not prescribe this medication in this situation.

[SilasX]

I get the logic, but … isn’t this failure mode the fault of the doctor, for overreacting to a minor issue/non-issue, rather than the patient for getting yearly checkups?

[ch4s3]

As others are pointing out, cholesterol is a lab indicator not a symptom or disease out right. Cholesterol numbers are a proxy for risk for a negative event, but only a weak proxy. If you're otherwise healthy and don't have a family history of cardiac events then your cholesterol numbers probably don't matter. Trying to control those numbers in the absence of other risk factors presents other risks. Cholesterol medicines aren't without side effects, so you're best off not taking them if you don't need them.

[coldtea]

That's the key: you don't need to know it.

[smileysteve]

Cholesterol is a prime example; The leading medications deteriorate muscle and reduce mobility; where increased mobility decreases the risk of cholesterol illness via inreased arterial plasticity.

And where dietary cholesterol has been proven to not be directly related, you're fighting your liver and genetics.

[tremon]

Higher compared to what? Have you established what your healthy baseline cholesterol level is, or are you just assuming that whatever the literature uses as its favourite test demographic accurately captures your age/metabolism/lifestyle?