MikeFit_NJ 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.
ricardo_MIA said:Trying to work out whether my panel improved or merely rearranged itself, because two of the numbers went the wrong way.
Advanced lipoprotein testing on the lipid panel — going beyond standard lipid panel:
| Marker | Baseline | Month 8 | Clinical Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| LDL-P | 1542 | 942 | Particle count (more precise than LDL-C) |
| Small dense LDL | 57% | 34% | Atherogenic pattern |
| Remnant cholesterol | 34 | 16 | Triglyceride-rich lipoproteins |
| oxLDL | 67 | 40 | Oxidative stress marker |
The shift from small dense to large buoyant LDL is particularly important — it represents a fundamental change in the atherogenic profile.
LipidDoc_ATL said:Careful with treating an unchanged LDL-C as a failure.
Comprehensive lipid panel update relevant to the lipid panel:
| Marker | Baseline | 6 Months | 12 Months | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Cholesterol | 261 | 196 | 186 | <200 |
| LDL | 146 | 121 | 106 | <100 |
| HDL | 39 | 52 | 53 | >40 |
| Triglycerides | 241 | 176 | 96 | <150 |
| LDL-P | 1481 | 1131 | 881 | <1000 |
The triglyceride drop is the most impressive. My cardiologist reduced my statin dose based on these results.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne thing that is still open after ben_calgary’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
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.