trace blood in urine?

I wouldn't just write it off to the running...

I do know that when running long races (eg hard marathons,
or 30-50 mile races) it is common for there to be some blood
in the urine. My first [censored] after an ultra will usually be a
darkish yellow-orange color.

I've read that its caused by the walls of the bladder
slapping together for many miles when empty. Also, I think
we can [censored] out damaged red blood cells, which can take a
beating in the soles of the feet, for example.

But I haven't ever had blood in my urine in any physicals,
and I average over 10 miles per day.

I would do what it takes to make sure that it isn't some
other potentially bad thing.

--Dan

"Len A." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5374-409EEFF9-173@storefull-
3198.bay.webtv.net...

Quoted message said:

Had a company physical the other day. Sample of urine
required, Doctor told me that a trace amount of blood came
up on the test strip. Just so happens I had increased my
mileage that previous week from 30 to over 40 miles.
Question .... should I worry about this or is this normal
for this amount of running?

Len

A little blood in your wiz is no problem. It's when it pours
out of your eye sockets that you might need to back off on
the training a bit.

You really need to talk to the doc about this. I have a
trace amount of blood in urine every time I go to the doc.

Finally I had an intravenous injection of dye that flows
through the body and lights up the kidney and bladder to see
if there is damage. The doc might recommend this.

An alternative is to insert a camera up the urethra to
examine the bladder.

Again, you really should discuss this with a doctor;
preferably a urologist.

"Len A." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5374-409EEFF9-173@storefull-
3198.bay.webtv.net...

Quoted message said:

Had a company physical the other day. Sample of urine
required, Doctor told me that a trace amount of blood came
up on the test strip. Just so happens I had increased my
mileage that previous week from 30 to over 40 miles.
Question .... should I worry about this or is this normal
for this amount of running?

Len

How about just a repeat dip test? Let a week or so go by,
make sure in the meantime you are staying well hydrated,
which will help keep the bladder cushioned by some urine
while you run. Don't ignore it and be sure to get the repeat
dip test, but don't get stressed out by it. I would bet that
it's because of your change in running. (Hedge - I'm not a
urologist, nephrologist, or internist.) If the repeat is
also positive, then your doc needs to proceed further with
her/his workup.

Margaret

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message ne-
ws:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I wouldn't just write it off to the running...

I do know that when running long races (eg hard marathons,
or 30-50 mile races) it is common for there to be some
blood in the urine. My first

[censored]

Quoted message said:

after an ultra will usually be a darkish yellow-
orange color.

I've read that its caused by the walls of the bladder
slapping together

for

Quoted message said:

many miles when empty. Also, I think we can [censored] out
damaged red blood cells, which can take a beating in the
soles of the feet, for example.

But I haven't ever had blood in my urine in any physicals,
and I average over 10 miles per day.

I would do what it takes to make sure that it isn't some
other potentially bad thing.

--Dan

"Len A." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5374-409EEFF9-173@storefull-
3198.bay.webtv.net...

Quoted message said:

Had a company physical the other day. Sample of urine
required, Doctor told me that a trace amount of blood
came up on the test strip. Just so happens I had
increased my mileage that previous week from 30 to over
40 miles. Question .... should I worry about this or is
this normal for this amount of running?

Len

Len A. said:

Had a company physical the other day. Sample of urine
required, Doctor told me that a trace amount of blood came
up on the test strip. Just so happens I had increased my
mileage that previous week from 30 to over 40 miles.
Question .... should I worry about this or is this normal
for this amount of running?

This is a great example of "ask a dumb question
inappropriately, get a problematic answer".

There is no justification for doing any urine testing on
anyone of any age in the absence of symptoms (unless
pregnant). It has been reviewed many times in many ways at a
wide range of age groups, and every time, the answer comes
up the same, either
1) insufficient evidence to show benefit from screening
urine tests, or more often,
2) clear evidence that screening urine tests cause harm

Harm how? Harm by suggesting disease when there is none.
This is likely, though not certainly, to be the case here.
Follow along: test urine (without justification), get
positive worrisome result, wonder whether disease exists, do
big workup investigation, such as painful scopes up urethra
which cost a hell of a lot of money and can cause harm
(infection, trauma, etc.), or do dye test already mentioned
which involves xray radiation exposure and the dye is kidney
toxic, and so forth.

Don't believe me? Check an authority you might believe more
than me, the United States Preventive Services Task Force,
which makes recommendations on screening tests in
asymptomatic persons and then gives the evidence which
supports the recommendations.

No value screening for bladder cancer with urine dipstick:
hstat.nlm.nih.govscreenOpen ↗
/Browse/s/47208/cmd/HF/action/GetText?IHR=CH17

No value to screening for bacteria with urinalysis (unless
pregnant): ahrq.govuspsbact.htmOpen ↗

Now you and your real doctor (rather than your "company
physical" employer will have to puzzle over what to do with
a potentially meaningful but probably meaningless test
result. As another respondent already effectively and
accurately pointed out, the test result could mean disease,
and more likely it could mean nothing bad at all, such as
all the usual running-related reasons for a little blood in
the urine.

Sorry you will now have to deal with whether and how to
figure it out.

Best regards, -- Josh Steinberg MD, Syracuse, who doesn't
know everything, but is up on what preventive and screening
measures are appropriate

"Joshua Steinberg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Len A. wrote:

There is no justification for doing any urine testing on
anyone of

any

Quoted message said:

age in the absence of symptoms (unless pregnant). It
has been

reviewed

Quoted message said:

many times in many ways at a wide range of age groups,
and every

time,

Quoted message said:

the answer comes up the same, either
1) insufficient evidence to show benefit from screening
urine

tests, or

Quoted message said:

more often,
2) clear evidence that screening urine tests cause harm

Very interesting. I went for my yearly physical and my Vet
did not take a urine sample. I forgot to ask if it was
oversight as in past years I was usually asked for a sample
and I had just peed five minutes before I arrived..

What are/where the general problems they do/did anticipate
from the urine sample? It must have been fairly simple test
(sugar?) since they did the "test" in the office.

--
Doug Freese
[email hidden]
(Remove the NOBS)

Doug Freese said:

What are/where the general problems they do/did anticipate
from the urine sample? It must have been fairly simple
test (sugar?) since they did the "test" in the office.

Doctors imagined that the simple office urine testing would
show sugar, blood, protein, markers of bacterial infection,
bilirubin, and the like, which they hoped would suggest
diseases that could be found earlier than they would have
been found if not for checking the urine test.

But as often happens, doctors overestimated the power of
technology and underestimated the flaws of logic. The tests
themselves have inaccuracies, both overestimating and
underestimating problems. And findings do not always (or
even often) mean disease, yet they always trigger big
investigations, which themselves cost lotsa money and can
cause harm. Turns out that when these things are rigorously
studied, we cause far more harm with cost, apprehension, and
harmful investigation, than we reap benefit from the very
infrequent discovery of unappreciated disease.

As has been discussed many times in this newsgroup, runners
do have not infrequently gross or microscopic blood in the
urine. It makes for a great example of why checking for
something you think is abnormal but really isn't winds up
not advancing health but rather potentially harming it.

-- Josh Steinberg MD, Syracuse