The new item is the statement :
"LDL levels not sufficient for LDL size determination."
I have an excellent LDLp at less than 300.<300 .="" p=""> 300>
<300 .="" p="">At this level of low LDLp, size of particles not important as the concentration gradient is so low, few particles go into the wall of the artery.
My concern is that LDLp small of 163 puts me at moderate risk.
The HDLp LARGE was too low according to Quest and put me at high risk.
I have followed my advanced lipid testing since 7-26-06 when my first LDLp was 534, HDLc 54, non-HDLc 70.
All my results at:
Brian's Lab results link
My first advanced lipid testing was done in 1993 by Sequoia Lipid Clinic by
H. Robert Superko MD.
Total Cholesterol 149
Small dense LDL particle size.
LDLsubclass pattern was B
In 1993 Doctor Superko suggested I treat the pattern B with:
Reduction of excess body fat
(I have finally achieved this, see:
Free manuscript of The Tubby Traveler from Topeka
Secondary therapies suggested by Dr. Supergo included nicotinic acid and gemfibrozil.
I knew the side effects of these drugs and didn't take either of them.
Final Conclusion by me:
1- Size of LDLp not important if LDLp is less than 1,000.<1 b="" by="" method.="" nbsp="" nmr="">1>
2- NMR done by Lab Corp is the best advanced testing.
I have been on an Atkins type diet since 1-2011, which means I have been on 60% fat (so called bad and good fat).
Most low carb high fat gurus claim the large LDLp is safe (safer?)
At this point I disagree with the Atkin type people.
If your LDLp is less than 1,000 NMR , there are not enough small particles to cause disease.
If you already have plaque then get LDLp less than 750 NMR.
I have been taking atoravastin 10 mg/d and Endur-acin (niacin) 1,000 mg a day for a decade.
See my book Tubby Theory from Topeka