Health & Family Blood tests, who does them?

I'm still finding out more about PSA testing, with is not reccomended by some doctors. I haven't talked to mine about it yet. However, I do have a particular interest in this test because my father was diagnosed with prostate cancer after a high PSA reading.

 

It will not hurt getting that test done. The better way is the finger in the butt examination....

 

Agree.

 

then there's this....
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/lundell.html

At the end of the day, I reckon:
- eat sensibly
- do a lot of exercise
- stay lean
- be happy or get happy
- and leave the rest to God.

FYI I have high cholestrol too despite a reasonably ok diet, not overwight etc. Probably genetically predisposed.

 

It's a personal choice and might depend on your risk factors but this won't be my path. The first 4 for sure, but add regular screenings for me. My dad is only alive now because of regular screening. He has had acromegaly, skin cancer, prostate cancer and some kind of sarcoma. Thanks to early diagnosis and treatment he is alive and feeling well today. Without early detection and treatment, it is certain he would not be with us today. I'll definitely start regular screenings. For me it will be worth it.

 

I wouldn't dispute the importance of CRP (as in the protein), but screening for a result that is non-specific/could be raised with any number of conditions, and has no treatment even if abnormal, is questionable.

How about faecal occult blood tests, which are effectively an excuse to get people in for a colonoscopy? Ill be having mine at 40.

There is currently a VERY short list of things that are effective to screen for, and even some of the biggies are hotly debated (think breast and prostate cancer). This list differs with age, but a visit to a trusted GP is the place to start.

 

I wasn't implying don't get regular checks, I was implying that there isn't a definitive answer wrt high cholestrol vs low, sugar or trans/sat fats causing heart disease etc.

 

Being proactive can only be a positive thing and catching something early could make all the difference.

 

Yes, that is true.

 

No, a positive result does not always confirm a diagnosis. A false positive result can create mental anguish, and physical harm as confirmatory tests became more invasive, not to mention the costs (of tests, time of work, etc). Many diagnoses may not ever cause issue (prostate cancer a prime example - it is said that 100% of males will die WITH prostate cancer).

There is a term for similar findings when doing scans for other reasons, VOMIT - victim of medical imaging and technology.

 

I said being proactive is a positive thing. As an example my father in law will not change, thinks everything will be okay and skews his results before blood test by dieting a for the week prior to blood draw. Then continues to eat ****** for 6 months and is happy he fooled the doctor and thinks he has saved not losing his job, yet risks his life in the process. He has issues need to be looked at yet he could care less at the moment as he has gotten away with it. It will not be like that for the long haul though. If he was proactive now it would only be positive as his future would certainly be better than it is now.

 

I just donate blood and cross my fingers they don't call back.

After what age should one get blood tests? 50?

 

Hey Bran are you a doctor?

 

No real age to get them by. If you are having symptoms of some sort you get checked. But a yearly blood test as a check does no harm.

If you are donating blood it would have to be checked or not? I have no idea how this works here but I assume some sort of check has to be done on each donation? You could possibly ask for the results if so.

 

I know what you are saying but I think it would depend on the individual. I have been given an adverse finding on a blood test recently (high liver enzymes). I was on antibiotics for a while for some kind of infection in my mouth that I could not get a diagnosis for. Two things from this: not knowing what was wrong caused me a lot of mental anguish. Once I had a scan and it found nothing wrong, my mental anguish disappeared and so did the infection (eventually). On the other hand, a result of high liver enzymes didn't worry me at all. It's most likely a result of being on antibiotics for such a long time. I have a follow up test next week and I will find out if they are back to normal. Otherwise I will see what might be the cause. In my case, a positive result doesn't worry me. Not knowing worries me a lot.

 

Imagine what a suspicious breast lump on mammography does for a woman. Not all of these are cancers, but are treated as such until proven otherwise including biopsies and surgery.
Not saying don't screen for breast cancer, but there is still a negative aspect. I don't know the figures, but I would guess a false positive or recall rate of at least a few percent, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was as high as 10%

What about a prostate cancer in an elderly male that was never going to effect his QOL or quantity of life? He then undergoes an operation with complications...

No easy answer to these except population based studies - not always applicable to an individual as you suggest

 

I suspect that not being outdoors and doing "man" stuff would probably have something to do with this too. A lot of sedentary office workers, not enough lumberjacks.

 

Found them!

Ok, TC 4.3
HDL 1.24
Trigs 1.1
LDL 2.6

3.46-to-1. Phew! Just scraped it in

But really, HDL is looking ok, Trigs are good, LDL is looking a bit high.

 

Remember the 1980's food pyramid diagram as above.

You think this caused a spike in diabetics being diagnosed later on?

This diagram was taught all through my primary school years.

Short grain white rice is probably one of the worst sources of carbohydrates.

I would say now the pyramid would look a bit different.

 

Nope. I would blame that one processed foods. I'm not talking about minimally processed foods here, like fruit, veg, milk, cheese and yoghurt (full fat, plain or greek). Or even moderately processed foods like rolled oats, canned beans etc. I'm talking about highly processed and ultra-processed foods like breakfast cereals, sweetened low-fat yoghurts, biscuits, potato crisps, corn chips etc.

It's bad but I reckon anything of processed wheat is worse... white flour for example.

It is sadly not too different. Here it is now in all it's gory glory: