Help on my confusion over # conversion

[DragonBits]

Recently, I got new blood test, I included Oxidized LDL

My number was 21 ng/ml range 10-170.
I believe lower is better, wondering why there is lower limit of 10?
But more confusing, and this happens often, comparing this number with studies. These studies tend to use different conventions.

One study:

Circulating Oxidized LDL Is a Useful Marker for Identifying Patients With Coronary Artery Disease.

https://www.ahajournals.org › pdf › 01.atv.21.5.844

In there, they said:

“Levels of oxidized LDL were 2.93 +/-.17 mg/dL for patients with 1-vessel disease”

So if I try can convert this using my 21 ng/dl, 2.93 mg/dl translates to 29,300 ng/dl ! This means I have 0.0021 mg/dl?

I realize these are people with “1-vessel disease” but the number of 29,300 seems really high even for people with problems.

So is my math correct?

Even harder to reconcile, some studies use UNITs/L.

Oxidized LDL and its correlation with lipid profile and oxidative stress biomarkers in young healthy Spanish subjects

Oxidized LDL and its correlation with lipid profile and oxidative stress biomarkers in young healthy Spanish subjects - PubMed

The biological effects of oxidized LDL (oxLDL) may contribute to initiation and progression of the atherosclerotic process, and the association between cardiovascular disease and oxidation of LDL has been largely demonstrated. The objectives of this study were to establish the reference values...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Un there they said:
(Normal mean reference values): oxLDL (63.23 +/- 16.23 U/L),

Does anyone know how I would relate my 21 ng/mg to 63.23 U/L ? Like, how many U/L is 21 ng/mg?

 

[Vince]

I find oxidized LDL measurement as not very useful provided you have quantified small LDL. The most atherogenic form of LDL is glycoxidized LDL, i.e., LDL particles that are glycated and oxidized. We don’t measure glycated LDL, but we have HbA1c, a gauge of overall glycation.

 

[DragonBits]

I find oxidized LDL measurement as not very useful provided you have quantified small LDL. The most atherogenic form of LDL is glycoxidized LDL, i.e., LDL particles that are glycated and oxidized. We don’t measure glycated LDL, but we have HbA1c, a gauge of overall glycation.

I did the NMR LipoProf test, that included small LDL numbers. Though that was back in May of 2019, no doubt it is different now.

BTW, my HbA1c was 5.6, I would have liked it lower, but I have made no effort to make that happen. .

what about f2-isoprostanes, and f2-isoprostanes/creatinine? I see the Cleveland HeartLab has that listed. I did that also on this blood /' urine test.

I measured things I don't normally ever look at, like this was the first time I measured prolactin. Between this lab and one in Feb, I pretty much measured everything I thought important.

https://www.clevelandheartlab.com/w...18-F2-Isoprostanes-Practitioner-One-Pager.pdf

This is likely my last blood test this year, I plan on getting another cac scan in Aug (I have had 2), just to see how it progressed. Maybe I will do a cholesterol finger stick test, since I have been changing my diet and have a desire to lose ~10-20lbs.

 

[Vince]

I did the NMR LipoProf test, that included small LDL numbers. Though that was back in May of 2019, no doubt it is different now.

BTW, my HbA1c was 5.6, I would have liked it lower, but I have made no effort to make that happen. .

what about f2-isoprostanes, and f2-isoprostanes/creatinine? I see the Cleveland HeartLab has that listed. I did that also on this blood /' urine test.

I measured things I don't normally ever look at, like this was the first time I measured prolactin. Between this lab and one in Feb, I pretty much measured everything I thought important.

https://www.clevelandheartlab.com/w...18-F2-Isoprostanes-Practitioner-One-Pager.pdf

This is likely my last blood test this year, I plan on getting another cac scan in Aug (I have had 2), just to see how it progressed. Maybe I will do a cholesterol finger stick test, since I have been changing my diet and have a desire to lose ~10-20lbs.

As you know small LDL particles should be under 270. Some doctors even say under 200. Ideally, A1C should be between 4 - 5.

CT heart scan. Some people have them once a year but I think that's too often.

 

[Cataceous]

... Ideally, A1C should be between 4 - 5.
...

Seems debatable. Bernstein is at one extreme. Counter examples:

Spline models revealed a U-shaped association, with lowest risk at HbA1c levels 5.4–5.6% (36–38 mmol/mol) and a significantly increased risk at ≤5.0% (≤31 mmol/mol) and ≥6.4% (≥46 mmol/mol).[R]​

​

... very low HbA1c levels were associated with increased risk of developing dementia.[R]​

​

In fact, levels below 4.5 are "quite unusual," and usually are only when people have anemia or other abnormalities of the red blood cells.[R]​

 

[tareload]

Red cell life span heterogeneity in hematologically normal people is sufficient to alter HbA1c - PMC

Although red blood cell (RBC) life span is a known determinant of percentage hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), its variation has been considered insufficient to affect clinical decisions in hematologically normal persons. However, an unexplained discordance ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Fun conversation for your next dinner party:

 

[Vince]

5.0% or less, the level at which all excess risk (including cardiovascular) is gone.

There is even excess risk at a HbA1c of 5.3%, well below what most of doctors define as "healthy" or acceptable.

Glycation affects virtually every organ of the body and it is an irreversible process. It essentially generates debris that can interfere with the health and function of an organ.

The irreversibility of endogenous glycation is what makes it such an important process.

 

[Vince]

docmass found the A1c cite
ADA-DC: Association Between Hemoglobin A1c and All-Cause Mortality: Results of the Mortality Follow-up of the German National Health Interview and Examination Survey 1998

Figure 1 shows the U-curve, with the lowest ACM at 4.5%.
The paper has this to say about that:
These findings are in concordance with results from our sensitivity analysis of an increased mortality risk at HbA1c levels <5.0% (<31 mmol/mol) compared with HbA1c levels of 5.0 to <5.7% (31 to <39 mmol/mol). In contrast, the EPIC-Norfolk study [the paper Ivor cited] did not detect an increased mortality risk in the lower HbA1c range; risk was similar for HbA1c values <5.5% (<37 mmol/mol) and significantly increased afterward (9). Some other studies also tested for nonlinearity of the association between HbA1c levels and all-cause mortality but confirmed linear relationships (17–19).

Therefore, whether low HbA1c levels are a predictor of increased mortality risk remains controversial. Low HbA1c has been considered as a general marker of disease and a correlate of impaired red blood cell indices, unfavorable measures of iron storage, and increased liver function indices (15,16,32). These factors, in turn, were shown to correlate with inflammatory processes and increased morbidity and mortality (33–35). However, in our main and sensitivity analyses considering several comorbid conditions, the increased mortality risk in the lower HbA1c range persisted, which is also in accordance with a study based on NHANES III data (16). Residual confounding (36) and reliance on self-report for most chronic diseases have to be considered for discussing this observation but are unlikely to entirely explain the robust result. Therefore, future studies with a large number of individuals with low HbA1c levels and detailed assessment of morbid conditions would be important to further investigate mechanisms underlying the increased mortality risk in the lower HbA1c range (16).

Put another way, for people on standard diets, having a low A1c is unusual, and easily an indication of some pathology not on the metsyn spectrum.