>> and having seen a lot of lipids/HbA1c I have to say I have never seen results this good in anybody else.
> point is that I have not seen better numbers in any patient.
Well that’s a biased or too small sample size. 2.19 is a great number for most adults (barring those with very high risk ASCVD where these days we want to squash it down much lower) - and if you were my patient I would be congratulating you but alas you are just a rando on an Internet forum where we can discuss data dispassionately and..
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.106.25.3237
If I see only 20 patients in clinic or realistically a cohort of clinics that is representative of the American population I expect 1 or 2 to pop better numbers.
It’s better than average but not rare or uncommon by even American standards (and don’t look at the Dutch numbers if you want to feel good about yourself).
This has become quite a bizarre conversation. You seem utterly unwilling to believe that you can meet a healthy person on the internet, and even if you did, you assume it's purely genetic.
You've sent me the distribution of lipids across all age groups, done for research purposes. In clinic you rarely test anyone in those younger age groups for lipids as screening starts at 40 for men and 50 for women. So, you know, you don't see results for 20 year olds in clinic, and if you do see those results for younger people it's because they have some pretty extreme risk factors like morbid obesity. Are you ordering lipids on healthy 20 year olds?
Interesting to see that even against the youngest age group, my triglycerides are low enough to be in the 5th percentile, HDL is above 95%, and LDL below 10th percentile. Total cholesterol was 4.40 so my ratio is 2.2, which is far below average for risk. My HDL was better than 95% of Dutch teenagers and my triglycerides were better than 90% of 20-somethings.
> You seem utterly unwilling to believe that you can meet a healthy person on the internet, and even if you did, you assume it's purely genetic.
You seem to have some deep insecurities. I already acknowledged multiple times that your stats are overall consistent with good health. I lightly pointed out, pretty uncontroversially, that some of those results have a genetic component - so thank your parents even if just a little. "you assume it's purely genetic" is pure hyperbole.
> You've sent me the distribution of lipids across all age groups, done for research purposes.
Yeah, exactly, why would that not be relevant? These are the distribution of lipid profiles in the NHANES dataset that is used to guide clinical care throughout the Western world. Modern medicine care is based on research.
> In clinic you rarely test anyone in those younger age groups for lipids as screening starts at 40 for men and 50 for women.
In the US it starts a bit younger. And again, rare is a hyperbole. We routinely screen pediatric patients in the US - that is standard of care. So....
> Are you ordering lipids on healthy 20 year olds?
Yes, of course - not that rarely.
If a healthy 20 year old has no record of being screened in childhood I will screen to rule out FH, obvi.
"healthy" is a nebulous concept - I consider it appropriate to order lipids on what I deem a healthy 20 something with risk factors (family history, certain childhood illnesses, HIV, diabetes - not all young folks with diabetes are unhealthy even if they are not as amazing as you, etc).
> ... My HDL was better than 95% of Dutch teenagers and my triglycerides were better than 90% of 20-somethings.... blah blah blah
Exactly. So, very good, as I already stated, even excellent. But not something that is super rare - 95%tile is 1 in 20, that is not rare.
You were that one that made this about an appeal to authority: "and having seen a lot of lipids/HbA1c I have to say I have never seen results this good in anybody else."
I quoted the literature to not make this some anonymous dick sizing contest - and also because the data is interesting. I admit lipid management is a personal interest - now you can look into why ordering lipids on 20 year olds is sometimes appropriate. You seem to be hung up on being butthurt that the entire conversation is not unconditional praise on your personal accomplishments.
> point is that I have not seen better numbers in any patient.
Well that’s a biased or too small sample size. 2.19 is a great number for most adults (barring those with very high risk ASCVD where these days we want to squash it down much lower) - and if you were my patient I would be congratulating you but alas you are just a rando on an Internet forum where we can discuss data dispassionately and.. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.106.25.3237 If I see only 20 patients in clinic or realistically a cohort of clinics that is representative of the American population I expect 1 or 2 to pop better numbers.
It’s better than average but not rare or uncommon by even American standards (and don’t look at the Dutch numbers if you want to feel good about yourself).