Cholesterol levels do not need to be measured fasting.
For as long as I can remember I have not told my patients to fast when getting a cholesterol level. I saw this as an inconvenience with minimal extra benefit. Today an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association from a group in Cambridge, England, have published an analysis of the value of measuring lipid levels. They concluded that fasting was a waste of time. In addition they found that measuring a total cholesterol and HDL-cholesterol (the good cholesterol) was often cheaper and provided as much information as directly measuring LDL-cholesterol (the bad cholesterol).
I should point out that many older person have high concentrations of large fluffy LDL (if you like a good-bad cholesterol). This type of cholesterol is non-atherogenic and it may be harmful to lower it. So I will still measure this in persons over 75 years of age, who have not had a heart attack or other reason to lower cholesterol.It allows me to stop statins in those with high levels of this large fluffy LDL.
The authors in the JAMA article suggested that niacin, which increases HDL and lowers LDL cholesterol, may be under used. I am unsure that their data totally supports this idea.
The BOTTOM LINE: You no longer need to be fasting when you get your cholesterol measured.
Loading ...
Dammert Professor of Gerontology and
Director, Division of Geriatric Medicine
Director, Gateway Geriatric Education Center
Department of Internal Medicine
Saint Louis University School of Medicine
and Director, GRECC,
St. Louis Veterans Affairs Medical Center 
I agree, only many physicians often include triglycerides when ordering lipid panel. since triglycerides are mostly done fasting, ‘cholesterols’ end up being fasting too. Nice point on non-HDL particles to be a calculated value.
Many people think they have their cholesterol levels ‘under control’. However, new guidelines from the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommend a much more aggressive target for lipid levels. The new target is based on calculations of the likelihood of coronary artery disease in relation to lipid levels.
The JAMA article showed no advantage of measuring triglyceride levels for heart disease or stroke. While some people clearly need to have triglyceride levels measured , this should not be a routine screening test for coronary artery disease risk. The cholesterol guidelines are almost certainly too aggressive for older persons. The “Prosper” study failed to show improved mortality, function or cognitive status in older persons. It did decrease heart disease. this suggest while a segnent of the population benefits from lowering cholesterol, another may have side effects.