Dr.NutriCornell 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.
dan_philly 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 | 1569 | 969 | Particle count (more precise than LDL-C) |
| Small dense LDL | 69% | 29% | Atherogenic pattern |
| Remnant cholesterol | 37 | 18 | Triglyceride-rich lipoproteins |
| oxLDL | 74 | 47 | Oxidative stress marker |
The shift from small dense to large buoyant LDL is particularly important — it represents a fundamental change in the atherogenic profile.
HPLC_Greg 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 | 255 | 220 | 180 | <200 |
| LDL | 170 | 115 | 100 | <100 |
| HDL | 43 | 46 | 62 | >40 |
| Triglycerides | 275 | 170 | 120 | <150 |
| LDL-P | 1475 | 1125 | 875 | <1000 |
The triglyceride drop is the most impressive. My cardiologist reduced my statin dose based on these results.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
Closing the loop on my own question.
Update: the thing I was blaming turned out not to be the cause. Leaving the original post as written rather than editing it, so the mistake stays visible for whoever searches this next.