Wonder why the different units of measure? Relative amounts? Homocysteine in in umol/L so Lp(a) is an order of magnitude smaller. And dL for the cholesterol is a magnitude larger than the L for Lp(a) & homocysteine. Sure makes comparison for relative importnce harder. Or is that the intent?
In my experience, those amounts should be producing dramatic results. (Have we discussed your possible dental toxicity?)
According to the Pauling/Rath patent, serum Lp(a) ranges in humans a "1000 fold" Lets assume that you are among the top producers of Lp(a), then I say again, you want to keep taking the C/Lysine/Proline to "inactivate" the tendency of all that sticky Lp(a) to collect on your arterial wall. Even if you can't lower your body's production of Lp(a). (I have a pet theory that proline can signal the liver to produce less Lp(a), well, this speculation, not a theory.)
Apparently much of the 1000-fold range is when Lp(a) is measured in mass, not particles. Some Lp(a) is very large, and this form is apparently not as dangerous as the smaller Lp(a). So if you have a measure of mass only, you might have a lot of mass, which looks dangerous when there is little danger.
The idea is to measure particles - nmol/liter. I guess this gives you a somewhat better idea, but it seems to exclude mass from the equation altogether.
I still like the VAP test from Atherotech. They solved the problem by giving Lp(a) mass/ weight in terms of an equivalent number of LDL cholesterol - which is an indirect measure of the number of particles. They also break the Lp(a) into 5 ranges, depending on mass, so you can get an idea of how dangerous your particular form of Lp(a) is.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests