Are these good or bad test results

[Deleted member 21371]

I think the takeaway from that study is

"While the American Heart Association currently recommends treatment based on a patient’s LDL-C levels (> 160 mg/dL) [41], given the existing body of evidence from RCTs, a similar guideline could be suggested for sdLDL."

So, the LDL soup is trying to kill you, higher the LDL-C, the higher the sdLDL on average, but it also suggests that you may have a higher than normal sdLDL-C even with a low LDL-C.

!They found that elevated sdLDL-C concentration, but not sdLDL particle concentration, was found to be a significant marker of CHD risk [26]."

and

"Firstly, individuals with normal range LDL-C have been found to still develop CHD"

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Well and also:

Both sdLDL and sdLDL-C are associated with higher CHD risk. The results are concordant with research investigating related lipids and is supported by biological evidence of sdLDL’s atherogenic potential, dose response evidence as well as genetic association studies. The implications are that while sdLDL/sdLDL-C may be useful as a risk marker, further research needs to be done to assess whether it is a suitable therapeutic target independent of well-known lipid metabolism pathways that have proven target therapies. Future research should aim to better characterize the dose-dependency between sdLDL levels and CHD, which could not be assessed due to lack of detailed information and investigate whether the simultaneous determination of sdLDL and sdLDL-C concentrations improve prognosis of CHD risk.​

So essentially they can clearly see the association, but the studies they analysed weren’t targeting sdLDL(-C) reduction, so they can’t say for sure that it is those particles in particular that do the damage. Only that the more of them you have, the higher your risks.

 

[Deleted member 21371]

Well and also:

Both sdLDL and sdLDL-C are associated with higher CHD risk. The results are concordant with research investigating related lipids and is supported by biological evidence of sdLDL’s atherogenic potential, dose response evidence as well as genetic association studies. The implications are that while sdLDL/sdLDL-C may be useful as a risk marker, further research needs to be done to assess whether it is a suitable therapeutic target independent of well-known lipid metabolism pathways that have proven target therapies. Future research should aim to better characterize the dose-dependency between sdLDL levels and CHD, which could not be assessed due to lack of detailed information and investigate whether the simultaneous determination of sdLDL and sdLDL-C concentrations improve prognosis of CHD risk.​

So essentially they can clearly see the association, but the studies they analysed weren’t targeting sdLDL(-C) reduction, so they can’t say for sure that it is those particles in particular that do the damage. Only that the more of them you have, the higher your risks.

That is true, the more sdLDL you have the greater the risk.
But, also, the higher the LDL concentration, the higher the sdLDL, but there are cases where a higher sdLDL-C may happen with a lower LDL, so measuring actual sdLDL is advised.
They are not suggesting a low sdLDL can be associated with a high overall LDL

It reads as a refinement of the current tests, to catch the cases of CHD that are slipping through the current regime when a low LDL is measured initially.

 

[Burylancs]

That is true, the more sdLDL you have the greater the risk.
But, also, the higher the LDL concentration, the higher the sdLDL, but there are cases where a higher sdLDL-C may happen with a lower LDL, so measuring actual sdLDL is advised.
They are not suggesting a low sdLDL can be associated with a high overall LDL

It reads as a refinement of the current tests, to catch the cases of CHD that are slipping through the current regime when a low LDL is measured initially.

Heh all of this reads like Medieval Theology - 'how many Angels can dance on the end of a pin ?'