Cholesterol testing kit vs blood test

[Z064life]

So my family is on a bit of a health craze at the moment (probably because of all the health programs on tv). I recently got an axa health check from work where my glucose levels, cholesterol, and several other metrics are measured.



Cholesterol is taken via a testing kit and the results ready in several minutes and returned ldl, hdl and a total. My parents suggest I take a full blood test from a vein and believe this is more accurate as it takes longer to get results and is from the vein (why the vein bit matters I don't know, and the time to get results may be due to the fact that other tests are done in a regular blood test?). Is there any actual benefit in a blood test? I'm 31 with no health issues.


Thanks!

[zeDuffMan]

Blood taken properly (practice nurse/phlebotomist/etc) goes to a path lab and is analysed using machines that are calibrated daily. It's likely to be more accurate than a portable device.

Other than cholesterol - which should be done as a 12 hour fasting blood test for highest accuracy - there isn't that much a blood test will reveal if you're otherwise healthy. Maybe it'll pick up some early stage cancer markers, but only if they go looking for them (unlikely). Routine blood tests check your liver, kidneys, red and white blood cells, clotting factors etc.

[Tri_Doc]

If your levels were normal, you don't need a venous sample. The results are sufficiently sensitive for us to make decisions on provided they were done at an NHS surgery and not from an internet bought kit.