ofonorow wrote:One of the problems with measuring Lp(a) is that it varies greatly in size - making the weight misleading. Lets consider 10 particles. If the 10 are smaller ones, weigh less, they are more atherogenic, so a greater weight may mean less risk.. that the Lp(a) is larger. This is probably why today they measure in particles (nmol/l) here in the USA. Do you have any more information about the Lp(a)? And in the USA we have problems in that the FDA allows labs to "compute" (rather than measure) Lp(a). Did you report your LDL cholesterol?
I have no more information about the size of my lp(a).
The labs measured:
in January 100 mg/dl (ref. value <30)
in April 49 mg/dl (ref. value <30)
in June 137 nmol/l (ref. value <75)
in September 92 mg/dl (ref. value <30) or 0,92 g/l (it's the same).
The only nmol value was measured in June. I've asked the lab. They said 137 nmol is nearby 49 mg/dl. And from June to September it increased to 92 mg/dl or 0,92 g//? I can't believe it.
My LDL value, also measured in September 2017, was 114 mg/dl (ref. value <130). Ox. LDL: 54 U/l (ref. value <55).
Could it be that there are more lp(a) particles in my blood circulation, due to PT, because lp(a) particles remove from my plaques?
I think, I read about it in a book from Matthias Rath.