Dr.GutHealth said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
nick_SD_fit said:Agreed, and hsCRP is worth reading alongside them.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Dr.GutHealth said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
Worth separating that from the lipid panel, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.