Looking For Insight Regarding Blood Test Results And Symptoms

  1. Looking For Insight Regarding Blood Test Results And Symptoms

    Hello everyone, I am looking for some advice and suggestions in regards to a few symptoms which I have had my entire life since I was a kid. These symptoms are anxiety, inconsistant and occasionnal suboptimal sexual and erectile performance (particularly under stress), and mild to moderate cold intolerance including frequent cold hands and feet if temperature is suboptimal. I have suspeced dysautonomia such as mitral valve prolapse syndrome as a possible culprit, as well as a few other things. Below is my bloodwork. Thanks for any advice!

    Blood Test Results (Highlighted Things Which Caught My Eye)Test Score Reference RangeCBC with differential/platelet

    WBC 5.1 4 - 10.5RBC 5.36 4.14 – 5.8Hemoglobin 15.4 12.6-17.7Hematocrit 45.3 37.5 - 51MCV 85 79 - 97MCH 28.7 26.6 - 33MCHC 34 31.5 – 35.7RDW 13.5 12.3 – 15.4Platelets 217 140 - 415Neutrophils 46 40-74Lymphs 43 14-46Monocytes 8 4 - 13EOS 2 0 - 7Basos 1 0 - 3Neutrophils (absolute) 2.4 1.8 - 7.8Lymphs (absolute) 2.2 .7 – 4.5Monocytes (absolute) .4 .1 – 1.0EOS (absolute) .1 0 - .4Basos (absolute) 0 0 - .2Immature Granulocytes 0 0 - 2Immature Granulocytes (absolute) 0 0 - .1Complete Metabolic PanelGlucose, Serum 83 65 - 99BUN 14 6 - 20Creatinine, Serum 1.23 .76 – 1.27eGFR if Nonafrican 77 >59eGFR if African 89 >59BUN / Creatinine Ratio 11 8 - 19Sodium, Serum 138 134 - 144Potassium, Serum 4.3 3.5 – 5.2Chloride, Serum 100 97 - 108Carbon Dioxide, Total 26 20 - 32Calcium, Serum 9.7 8.7 – 10.2 Protein, Total, Serum 6.9 6.0 – 8.5Albumin, Serum 4.9 3.5 – 5.5Globulin, Total 2.0 1.5 – 4.5A/G Ratio 2.5 1.1 – 2.5Bilirubin, Total .7 0.0 – 1.2Alkaline Phosphatase, Serum 58 25 - 150AST (SGOT) 33 0 - 40ALT (SGPT) 38 0 - 44Urinalysis, RoutineSpecific Gravity 1.01 1.005 – 1.030ph 7.0 5.0 – 7.5Urine-Color Yellow YellowAppearance Clear ClearWBC Esterase Negative NegativeProtein Negative Negative / TraceGlucose Negative NegativeKetones Negative NegativeOccult Blood Negative NegativeBilirubin Negative Negative Urobilinogen, Semi -QN .2 0.0 – 1.9Nitrite, Urine Negative NegativeLipid PanelCholesterol, Total High 206 100 – 199Triglycerides 66 0 - 149HDL Cholesterol 51 >39VLDL Cholesterol Cal 13 5 - 40LDL Cholesterol Calc High 142 0 - 99Iron and TIBC Iron Bind.Cap. (TIBC) 268 250 - 450UIBC Low 142 150-375 Iron, Serum 126 40 - 155Iron Saturation 47 15 - 55Testosterone, Free and TotalTestosterone, Serum 513 348 -1197Free Testosterone (Direct) 9.8 8.7 – 25.1Hemoglobin A1cHemoglobin A1c 5.1 4.8 – 5.6Thyroxine (T4) Free, Direct, ST4, Free (Direct) 1.33 .82 – 1.77DHEA-SulfateDHEA-Sulfate 342.7 160 - 449TSHTSH 2.63 .45 – 4.5Luteinizing Hormone (LH) , SLH 5.8 1.7 – 8.6FSH, SerumFSH 3.6 1.5 – 12.4ProlactinProlactin 11.1 4.0 – 15.2Prostate-Specific Ag, SerumProstate-Specific Ag, Serum 1.0 0.0 – 4.0C-Reactive Protein, CardiacC-Reactive Protein, Cardiac .67 0 - 3Estradiol, Sensitive Estradiol, Sensitive 11 3 - 70GGTGGT 21 0 - 65Magnesium, SerumMagnesium, Serum 2.1 1.6 – 2.6InsulinInsulin 4.5 2.6 – 24.9Ferritin, SerumFerritin, Serum 160 30 - 400Triiodothyronine, Free, SerumTriiodothyronine, Free, Serum 2.8 2.0 – 4.4Sex Horm Binding Glob, SerumSex Horm Binding Glob, Serum 46.9 16.5 – 55.9

  2. How about we focus on cause not so much symptoms by looking at.lifestyle current eating patterns as well as look.at history to examining underlying pathology. Traditional.medicine philosophy and mind set need to be reevaluated other wise our nation is going to.be in an epidemic health crisis. These lab results.are based up a "normal" population. Take a look around normal means 3/4 of people are sick and not well..
    I am not a medical Dr, please keep in mind that this answer is for information purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose, treat or replace sound medical advice from your physician or health care provider.

  3. Quote Originally Posted by The Matrix View Post
    How about we focus on cause not so much symptoms by looking at.lifestyle current eating patterns as well as look.at history to examining underlying pathology. Traditional.medicine philosophy and mind set need to be reevaluated other wise our nation is going to.be in an epidemic health crisis. These lab results.are based up a "normal" population. Take a look around normal means 3/4 of people are sick and not well..
    "Normality" by Allan Horwitz (a sociological view of "normal")

    Sociologists typically study phenomena that stand out from the commonplace. They pay more attention to crime than conformity, homosexuality than heterosex- uality, blackness than whiteness, or holi- days than regular days. The conventional, usual, and expectable is usually taken for granted and more rarely studied.
    Despite its general neglect, normal- ity has an extraordinarily powerful effect on how people behave. Even those who want to be different use a conception of the normal as a guide.
    One dilemma in the study of normal- ity is that in most cases no formal rules or standards indicate what conditions are normal, unlike the study of disease, which relies on the presence or absence of symp- toms, or crime, which can be defined in relation to a body of laws. This lack of standards for defining normality has led many to look to statistical distributions, where “the normal” is whatever trait most people in a group display.
    Intelligence tests provide the model for this conception of normality. These tests measure intelligence by relating the number of correct answers given by one person to the number other people answer correctly. For example, the aver- age or normal IQ is set, by definition, at 100. Normal, then, is whatever the aver- age or typical behavior is. Conversely, subnormal people test at the bottom of the statistical curve while the supernor- mal rank at the top. The IQ score of any particular person is meaningful only in comparison to the scores of others who take the test.
    A striking characteristic of the sta- tistical conception of normality is that it isn’t a characteristic of individuals, but rather a quality of the distribution of a trait within a particular group. As with measures of intelligence, it’s impossible to know if any given individual is normal or not without also knowing about that
    same trait in other people. Indeed, when normality is viewed as an average, we often find no individual could possibly be normal. For example, a statistically normal woman in the United States has 2.09 children, which no individual could have. Statistical normality is a property of groups, not individuals.
    If statistical normality is a property of groups, then it will differ from group to group. In societies where the average person dies at age 65, someone who lives to 80 might be statistically abnor- mal. But in the contemporary United States, an 80-year lifetime falls within the range of a normal life span. Someone whose scores on a personali- ty test in Japan indicate they’re outgo- ing, gregarious, and friendly might be judged as shy, introverted, and hostile in the United States, despite giving exact- ly the same answers.
    Sociologist Emile Durkheim gave an unusual twist to the statistical concep- tion of normality. He postulated that the needs of specific social groups, rather than statistical forces, generate distribu- tions of normality. Because all groups need to construct definitions of normal behavior, they single out behavior at the tails of statistical distributions as “deviant” to ensure behavior within the tails is normal.
    He used the example of a “society of saints” to illustrate. According to Durkheim, members of groups such as monasteries or convents develop norms of appropriate behavior so a certain pro- portion of members is defined as deviant. Actions such as not closing one’s eyes while praying, which would be unremark- able in other settings, are punished in societies of saints. Because all social groups require standards of normal behavior, Durkheim believed rates of non- conformity would be roughly equal in all groups, regardless of whether thesegroups were composed of what we gen- erally regard as saints or sinners.
    Several problems arise with statis- tical conceptions of normality. One is that purely statistical views can often make abnormal phenomena appear nor- mal. During World War II, for example, nearly 70 percent of soldiers exposed to extended periods of continuous combat developed mental illnesses. Similarly, according to the Oregon Adolescent Depression Project, more adolescents report having some symptoms of men- tal illness than having none. In such contexts, the psychologically healthy are statistically abnormal.
    Another anomaly of the statistical view is the arbitrary nature of the connec- tion between normality and social values. Consider Nazi Germany during the 1930s and 1940s—a majority of its citizens sup- ported policies of genocide, racism, and aggressive military conquest. Yet, many today say such beliefs, however common they might have been in this context, should never be considered normal.
    Related to this is the problem of how to handle people who differ from normality in positive, rather than nega- tive, ways. Geniuses, athletic stars, and exceptionally talented people receive very different social responses than the intellectually deficient, clumsy, or incom- petent. Yet a purely statistical view can’t distinguish positive from negative devi- ations from normality.
    A final limitation of the statistical conception is that when we consider increasing numbers of independently dis- tributed traits, it becomes less likely any- one can ever be normal. For example, one prominent theory assumes personal- ity is divided into five major dimensions, each independent of the others. People within two standard deviations of the mean, or two-thirds of the population, are considered normal on each trait.
    Using this standard, however, only a minority of people (40 percent) would be normal on any two traits, and only 13 percent would be normal on all five traits. Someone who fits a profile that contains multiple dimensions of normality would, in fact, be an extraordinary person.
    Because of these problems, sociol- ogists are more likely to view normality as some sort of ideal or social norm. The normative approach drops the statistical aspect of normality and treats what is normal entirely as conformity to a stan- dard or ideal.
    In contrast to statistical conceptions of normality, normative conceptions imply that everyone or no one in any particular group can be normal. Another difference from the statistical conception is that when we consider normality valu- able, we can determine whether or not a person is normal by measuring the qualities of that person without know- ing anything about the distribution of the trait in question among other members of the group.
    Durkheim’s second and more important contribution was to show how the statistical fact of normality in any group often comes to be equated with valued behavior. That is, statistically normal (average) behavior often becomes a norm or ideal standard of behavior so that frequent behaviors are seen as desirable behaviors. People often want to be normal and strive to achieve normality, so that statistical conceptions are transformed from group averages into traits people seek to emulate. Conversely, all groups use these stan- dards of normality to define deviant behavior as behavior that falls outside statistical norms.
    Another version of this normative approach sees standards as relative to particular groups rather than universal. Here normality is defined with reference to some conventional, culturally ground- ed standard. The military, for example, might strive to recruit soldiers who will conform to standards of discipline, sub- ordinate themselves to group demands,and display obedience to authority. Universities, in contrast, might value qualities of autonomy, self-motivation, and independence. What’s normal in one setting wouldn’t be valued in another.
    The normative view overcomes many of the problems of the statistical view, but suffers from deficiencies of its own. One is it often relies on ostensibly universal criteria that, as the influential French intellectual Michel Foucault emphasized, can be imposed on less powerful people in the name of the gen- eral value of normality.to what they think are the expectations of others. Institutions such as corporations, the military, or professional athletic teams often use personality tests in attempts to ensure potential recruits are within norms. Legal systems use standards of normality when bringing people to trial and allowing defenses against charges of criminal behavior. Advocacy groups claim we should regard their members as normal members of society. Advice columnists, not to mention professional therapists, constantly handle questions about whether someone is normal or not. normal varies from culture to culture, so that we have no universal standards by which to judge normality.
    A third definition of normality stems from evolutionary theory. In this view, promoted by philosopher Jerome Wakefield and evolutionary psychiatrist Randolph Nesse, normality is defined by characteristics that result from natural selection. Just as normal dogs chase cats, and normal birds fly to warm climates in the winter, normal humans are those whose eyes allow them to see and ears allow them to hear. People who lack these traits are abnormal.
    Evolutionary conceptions differ from statistical conceptions of normality in that universal standards of functioning, rather than the statistical distribution of a trait, are used to judge normality. These conceptions differ from normative views of normality in that criteria of normality aren’t supposed to be evaluative. Rather, they stem from how humans are biolog- ically designed by natural selection to function.
    Conceptions of “the normal” are used to sort people into jobs, screen out allegedly abnormal people from valued social roles, define what deviance is, and set norms by which people judge valued behaviors. People use views of normality to orient their own behavior and conform
    For as little agreement as there is among sociologists about what constitutes nor- mal behavior, normality nonetheless is a critical aspect of everyday social life.

  4. When ranges are based on a sick.population. You are getting skewed.results ..Vast majority of people are in the "normal" range which are derived.from. society who.is over weight, and is generally out of balance. Normal doesn't mean healthy when ranges are.from ages to 18-95. Think about the amount of.baby boomers when guys of 25 are being compared too..lol. Obvious there is something wrong when autism is one in 50! obesity, cancer and diabetes are at all time.high. Screw normal.......
    I am not a medical Dr, please keep in mind that this answer is for information purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose, treat or replace sound medical advice from your physician or health care provider.

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Blood Test Results and Appointment with Dr. Mariano
    By Mbmartin in forum Male Anti-Aging Medicine
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10-03-2008, 10:24 AM
  2. Blood Test Results for Superdrol Cycle
    By TripDog in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 05-19-2008, 02:55 PM
  3. My blood test results, need some insight.
    By Dogsoldier in forum 35 and Older
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-12-2007, 12:34 PM
  4. BLOOD TEST RESULTS: EFA's and Coleus forskoli
    By bioman in forum Supplements
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-20-2006, 10:16 AM
  5. blood test result and why is my test so low?
    By WATERLOGGED in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 01-29-2004, 11:28 PM
Log in
Log in