Re: Conversion factor for lab values

Bob <bbx107.XYZ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:31:05 GMT, JohnDoe@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Bob <bbx107.XYZ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:18:48 GMT, JohnDoe@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

bob

Hang on there, didn't I just reply to "Bob" aka Robert1? My mistake.
Obviously Bob and Robert1 are not the same. Sorry.

<snip>

My basic point is that your physician is the place to start. S/he
should be able to "translate" the lab report into English for you, and
answer the factual parts of your questions. S/he can also give you a
professional opinion of what they mean -- in the context of your
personal situation.

I realize this is the standard/accepted/PC reply however it's
something I'd like to break people of doing [is that English?] as much
as I can. It's incorrect, at least in my experience in those areas
I've had the opportunity to study in depth. That doesn't augur well
for the MD's knowledge in those areas I haven't pursued.

There's a couple of examples in my reply to Robert1 (failure to test
for E or E2, reliance on unreliable Free T values, etc.) Getting more
esoteric (questions I could ask my MD <g>): What's the difference
between E2, E1, and E3 (functions)? If E (in general or E2 if you
prefer) can effectively occupy the sex hormone receptors in the
hypothalamus (this causes proportionate shutdown in the production of
GNRH) what is the ratio (damn those ratios <g>) of E (or E2) to T
necessary to effect the same change? IOW if I knock down my E2 by
(say) 10pg/mL how much will this raise T? (I can partially answer the
first part; to the second I'd say ask a patient/customer on a friendly
NG who has actually done it, your average MD won't have a clue.)

<snip>

As an example... You asked about normal ratios of certain components.
But then the question becomes, what if one's ratios are not quite
"normal"?

Not normal, optimal! 20/40 is normal eyesight for a 60 year old;
optimal is 20/20.

No one knows what the optimal (or ideal) ratios are. The people who
are proposing them are just wildly grabbing at straws. If we work on
the basis that teenagers are the most healthy group in the population
you should either raise T or lower E to get closer to the teen ratio
subject to not putting your E levels too low for adequate
functionality. We don't know what the teenage levels are (other than
some vague dubious claims on some websites) so we need more info there
(maybe I should ask my MD? <g>) but we do have some reasonable info on
the cut off for E levels courtesy of the use of aromatase inhibitors
in females suffering from BCa. There's some info on males too.

It is not obvious without special knowledge that there is
any problem. I may be over-reading your intent in asking the question,
which is why I am bothering to elaborate a bit here.

Hmmm, OK, but one doesn't necessarily have to have a problem to take
pre-emptive action.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Contempt for Creationism
    ... snip ...] ... in friendly discours with our resident advocate for mass murder? ... I don't take Bob that seriously. ... to comment on an insightful criticism of one of my posts because Bob was ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Barenboims CSO farewell
    ... Your remarks are an embarrassment to the CSO, ... passed to you as you left and orchestra which he has served for many, ... Do you think he would appreciate that comment, Bob? ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: note to Boon: High End vs. High Fidelity
    ... The Sansui 2000 might not be my preference, ... your opinions with my superior standing. ... I stand over you, bob. ... [snip adhominem slur] ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: Hamiltons Rule: light at the end of a LONG tunnel?
    ... > Bob O'Hara wrote: ... > "Hamilton requires the number of organism recipients ... > existing testable theory) for the 4 classes ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
Loading