ApoE4.Info

Yip, can get that in my country.
It's within range : 149 mg/L. Range is 0 to 200mg/L.
Um...what does that mean?
Ps. I have zilch CVD disease in my ancestry even to late 80s.

Stavia, Just to pile on… those numbers look ideal to me. Actually quite a positive sign that your body is producing an optimal state largely independent of diet. Whereas I also recognize the improved TG/HDL ratio, even that is a minor change to that needed by many. No further hacking needed.

Stavia,

Are we talking the same test? I tested at 53 nmol/L last summer. The range on your test does not agree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipoprotei ... ic_testing
Lipoprotein(a) - Lp(a)[37]
Desirable: < 14 mg/dL (< 35 nmol/l)
Borderline risk: 14 - 30 mg/dL (35 - 75 nmol/l)
High risk: 31 - 50 mg/dL (75 - 125 nmol/l)
Very high risk: > 50 mg/dL (> 125 nmol/l)

My 3/3 friend with a 130 nmol/L Lp(a) has Tg/HDL ratio less than 1 (md/dL) with small LDL-P < 100 and LDL-P> 2,000. Yet her CIMT results are static year over year.

George, my test is in mg/l. It would convert to 14.9 mg/dl surely? 10 decilitres to a litre?

Russ, thanks for your comment. That's actually my gut feeling, that my body keeps a steady state within a wide variation of macronutrient percentages. Which would be a huge relief as I could eat freely within a range without obsessively tracking everything.
And agreed, I think the minor variation is the margin of error of the test.

Stavia,

Good call - I missed that detail!

That is an excellent reading, so something you certainly don't have to worry about!!!!

Good news.

Cheers,

Phew

Stavia wrote:I could eat freely within a range without obsessively tracking everything.

That fairly describes what I do. If I had to obsessively track everything I ate, it would take the most of the pleasure out of living.

What little there is left.

Amen, Brother Teezer.

I was reading an article on the super centenarians of which there are only 77 documented in the world and possible as many as 350 or 400 in total if you count the undocumented ones according to the article. It seems rather impossible to me to estimate the unknown. Anyways they say that they age 9 months biologically for every full circle spin around the sun of 12 months.
It should be obvious to all when I achieve this ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa