A blood test you've most likely never heard of...yet might be more predictive than most

(Bob M) #1

It’s called GGT. Here’s what one study says about it, in comparison with lipids (aka “cholesterol”). This is in a section discussing what tests life insurance companies use:

image
image.png893×197 28.9 KB

Supposedly, GGT is much more predictive than lipids.

This study is for GGT, “Gamma-Glutamyltransferase: A Predictive Biomarker of Cellular Antioxidant Inadequacy and Disease Risk”.

I first heard of GGT from Ivor Cummins. I’ve had GGT tested only once, as I have to pay for it. It’s not part of the normal testing done for a yearly physical.

Anyone else had their GGT taken?

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #2

GGT is a test of liver function, or so I thought. Cholesterol, on the other hand, is supposed to indicate cardiovascular risk. I’m not seeing how the former would be thought to replace the latter as an indicator of cardiovascular risk. But I’m not opposed to the idea, just surprised.

(Todd Allen) #3

GGT is considered quite sensitive to liver trouble but not specific and issues with other organs such as the kidneys can also raise GGT.

(Jane) #4

What were your results? A quick search found the test you can order yourself for $12.95.

(Todd Allen) #5

I get GGT because my ALT and AST tend to run high about 45 and 55. My GGT was 8. I have a muscle disease and ALT and AST both also come from muscle but muscle doesn’t affect GGT. I’ve got PPO insurance which typically covers about 80% of the cost of my non-standard tests. Actually a big part of the benefit is “renegotiating” prices. It is common to see a test billed at $100, renegotiated to $30 and the insurance paid $15.

(Jane) #6

What is the normal range of GGT?

(Bob M) #7

My GGT was 12, which is good, as is 8.

This is one resource for “normal” ranges, although that study above has a ton of evidence for different ranges:

@PaulL I think what they are saying is that, in the scheme of things - particularly long life or earlier death - whatever affects GGT is more important than lipids.

I’m planning on taking Brad from Fire in a Bottle’s succinate, but I want to get tests for inflammatory markers done beforehand and during it. GGT is one of those markers I’d get.

(Todd Allen) #8

The reference range on my test was 3 to 85.

(Bob M) #9

Another study on GGT, this one for inflammation/cardio risk factors:

(Carnivore for the win) #10

I watched this video yesterday. It ties in nicely with liver health and overall mortality. I always pay attention to liver health as NAFLD, caused my metabolic syndrome, is the reason I started keto, as it was recommended by my gastroenterologist.

#11

I had some recent blood tests due to suspected vaccine injury/reaction, or a coincidental sudden onset of an immune mediated illness correlated to the timing of COVID-19 vaccination. The test results go back 3 past iterations. The GGT were all 16 U/L. This time, with my body inflamed and with polyarthritis symptoms, the result is 21 U/L (5 - 50) with concurrent ALT 42 (5 - 40). The previous tests were monitoring tests. The recent one is due to being unwell. Those criteria need distinguishing.

(Doing a Mediterranean Keto) #12

My blood tests usually include Gamma-GT, which I understand is the same as GGT. I did not know its relevance. The recommended value is below 73 U/L.

(Bob M) #13

@FrankoBear Good points. I think all metrics are simply that, a single metric in isolation, and one has to consider more metrics and the whole person. It’s like focusing on LDL to the exclusion of everything else: it doesn’t really work. If you’ve lost 80 pounds, feel great, reversed most/all of your symptoms, yet have “high” LDL, that’s different from your HbA1c being very high, your feeling like crap, and having “high” LDL.

In the originally posted study, they reviewed other studies that used GGT in combination with other metrics, like ALT and AST.