Got my 9-month labs back and I keep staring at the triglycerides number. My doctor actually called me personally to say she's never seen this kind of improvement outside of adding a fibrate.
| Lipid Marker | Baseline (Jun '25) | 9 Months (Mar '26) | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Cholesterol | 268 mg/dL | 198 mg/dL | -70 (-26%) |
| LDL-C | 152 mg/dL | 112 mg/dL | -40 (-26%) |
| HDL-C | 34 mg/dL | 52 mg/dL | +18 (+53%) |
| Triglycerides | 298 mg/dL | 118 mg/dL | -180 (-60%) |
| VLDL | 60 mg/dL | 24 mg/dL | -36 (-60%) |
| Non-HDL-C | 234 mg/dL | 146 mg/dL | -88 (-38%) |
M/48, 5'9". SW: 261, CW: 216 (-45 lbs). Semaglutide 2.4mg. No statins, no fibrates, no fish oil during this period.
The HDL going from 34 to 52 might be the most meaningful change. My cardiologist said a 34 HDL was putting me at very high cardiovascular risk regardless of other numbers.
A 60% triglyceride reduction is outstanding. That's on par with what fenofibrate achieves, and you did it through weight loss and metabolic improvement alone.
The HDL increase is also important context. HDL is notoriously hard to raise with medication — statins barely move it, and the drugs that do raise it (niacin, CETP inhibitors) haven't shown great outcomes. Weight loss and exercise are actually among the most effective ways to raise HDL, and an 18-point increase is at the higher end of what's achievable.
Were your baseline trigs of 298 fasting? That's borderline for hypertriglyceridemia diagnosis.
Yes, 12-hour fasting sample both times. My doctor had actually discussed starting fenofibrate at that baseline draw. She said, "Let's see what the weight loss does first," and I'm very grateful she took that approach.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsLet me put some context around these numbers:
Your Trig/HDL ratio went from 8.8 to 2.3. This ratio is considered one of the best surrogate markers for insulin resistance and atherogenic dyslipidemia. Below 2.0 is ideal, 2.3 is excellent.
For reference, a Trig/HDL ratio above 3.5 is associated with a predominance of small, dense LDL particles (pattern B), which are more atherogenic. Below 2.5 suggests large, buoyant LDL (pattern A). So even though your LDL at 112 is still technically "above optimal," the actual risk associated with those particles has likely decreased dramatically.
Your calculated LDL may also be inaccurate at baseline since the Friedewald equation becomes unreliable when triglycerides exceed 200. Your true baseline LDL may have been somewhat different. The 9-month value at TG 118 should be reliable.
My trigs went from 224 to 89 over 6 months. Similar percentage drop. My doc said the metabolic improvement from semaglutide goes well beyond what the scale shows. Your lipid panel is a perfect example.