HPLC_Greg said:Before/after bloodwork compilation for the lipid panel — everything in one place for those who want comprehensive data: Category Marker Before After…
Careful with treating an unchanged LDL-C as a failure. If ApoB and triglycerides both fell, the particle picture improved regardless of what the calculated LDL says.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
emma_london said:Trying to work out whether my panel improved or merely rearranged itself, because two of the numbers went the wrong way.
Comprehensive lipid panel update relevant to the lipid panel:
| Marker | Baseline | 6 Months | 12 Months | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Cholesterol | 259 | 204 | 184 | <200 |
| LDL | 154 | 139 | 104 | <100 |
| HDL | 47 | 54 | 61 | >40 |
| Triglycerides | 279 | 194 | 104 | <150 |
| LDL-P | 1699 | 1249 | 949 | <1000 |
The triglyceride drop is the most impressive. My cardiologist reduced my statin dose based on these results.
FDA_TrackerJim said:Careful with treating an unchanged LDL-C as a failure.
Advanced lipoprotein testing on the lipid panel — going beyond standard lipid panel:
| Marker | Baseline | Month 8 | Clinical Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| LDL-P | 1710 | 1010 | Particle count (more precise than LDL-C) |
| Small dense LDL | 55% | 34% | Atherogenic pattern |
| Remnant cholesterol | 38 | 14 | Triglyceride-rich lipoproteins |
| oxLDL | 75 | 38 | Oxidative stress marker |
The shift from small dense to large buoyant LDL is particularly important — it represents a fundamental change in the atherogenic profile.
Janoshik Analytical — Independent Testing
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesGL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. — Direct Manufacturer
Est. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemFollowing on from Dr.CardioMD — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
Closing the loop on my own question.
For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.