Cardiac troponins have a crucial role in diagnosing acute myocardial infarction, but have been considered by some authors to have a high false positive rate. Such opinions may decrease the confidence in troponin with important clinical consequences. The aim of the paper is to analyze three different meanings of the phrase »false positive troponin«: A) analytic (technical) false positive, with no real myocardial damage; B) false positive considering AMI: cardiac injury is present, but there is no AMI; C) false positive considering CAD: there is myocardial damage, but no CAD. The most frequent and the most important source of misunderstanding is the confusion between aspects A) and B). Namely, there has been a relatively small percentage of false positive troponin elevations due to analytic reasons. On the contrary, there has been a re - latively large percentage of »false positive« results in patients with myocardial necrosis due to causes other than AMI; for them - instead of »FP troponin elevation« - another phrase ought to be used, e.g., »non-AMI troponin elevation « until the etiopathogenesis in an individual patient is recognized. The phrase »false positive troponin« should be restricted to the artificial increase in troponin due to preanalytic and analytic reasons. By doing so, we may decrease the degree of confusion about troponin and increase the confidence in this highly specific marker of myocardial injury. The possibility of an analytic false positive result should always be kept in mind when one interprets elevated troponin.