Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: OlympiaGym on May 29, 2024, 05:30:09 PM
-
Anyone know whether this is worthwhile? I get one every few years and always same result - zero plaque.
28 years of gear use and abuse so looking to monitor, but don’t want to waste time and money.
-
Anyone know whether this is worthwhile? I get one every few years and always same result - zero plaque.
28 years of gear use and abuse so looking to monitor, but don’t want to waste time and money.
Good test.
If there is evidence of coronary plaque by way of calcium buildup that can lead to blockages that result in a heart attack, this test would be a good indicator.
A score of zero is great. I would get the test every 3-5 years for peace of mind.
"1"
-
Meaningless test.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/do-you-need-a-calcium-scan
"But people need to realize that these risk scores are imprecise. For some, they may overestimate risk. For others, especially younger people in their 40 and 50s, they may underestimate risk," says Dr. Blankstein.
-
Good test.
If there is evidence of coronary plaque by way of calcium buildup that can lead to blockages that result in a heart attack, this test would be a good indicator.
A score of zero is great. I would get the test every 3-5 years for peace of mind.
"1"
Thank you.
-
Meaningless test.
Source?
-
Source?
See above.
They are a good excuse for a doctor to put you on statins and mess you up.
CT scans are high radiation and good for increasing your cancer risk.
Get one every 3-5 years?
That's 10-13 CT scans over 40 years in addition to other X-rays you get over that period.
Radiation is cumulative.
https://www.webmd.com/cancer/radiation-doses-ct-scans
-
See above.
They are a good excuse for a doctor to put you on statins and mess you up.
CT scans are high radiation and good for increasing your cancer risk.
Not sure that article proves your point. In my case, the test result makes me less likely to be a candidate for a statin prescription.
-
Not sure that article proves your point. In my case, the test result makes me less likely to be a candidate for a statin prescription.
Only fools take statins nowadays. Do some research.
-
See above.
They are a good excuse for a doctor to put you on statins and mess you up.
CT scans are high radiation and good for increasing your cancer risk.
Get one every 3-5 years?
That's 10-13 CT scans over 40 years in addition to other X-rays you get over that period.
Radiation is cumulative.
https://www.webmd.com/cancer/radiation-doses-ct-scans
I drink, smoke cigars, and use gear so a little extra radiation doesn’t really concern me. Also, not looking to live forever.
-
I drink, smoke cigars, and use gear so a little extra radiation doesn’t really concern me. Also, not looking to live forever.
You're on your way to an early death. Congrats.
-
Only fools take statins nowadays. Do some research.
No one is recommending I take statins.
-
I clicked because I honestly thought the title said ”Calum”
-
If you get "zero" youre good for many years (for calcium only).
I know a guy, very low cholesterol, zero calcium, had widow-maker heart attack.
(Soft plaque). Calcium score doesn't see or look for soft plaque. (The real thing that causes sudden blockage).
It is only 1-test, and means very little in the big picture of things.
-
Only fools take statins nowadays. Do some research.
True. The medical establishment wants everyone over 35 on them.
-
I'm just being argumentative but there is some truth in there occasionally.
-
True. The medical establishment wants everyone over 35 on them.
Those bastards.
-
If you get "zero" youre good for many years (for calcium only).
I know a guy, very low cholesterol, zero calcium, had widow-maker heart attack.
(Soft plaque). Calcium score doesn't see or look for soft plaque. (The real thing that causes sudden blockage).
It is only 1-test, and means very little in the big picture of things.
Did he have any underlying issues - obesity, family history, etc.? Or did he just have a “widow-maker” heart attack out of nowhere?
-
Did he have any underlying issues - obesity, family history, etc.? Or did he just have a “widow-maker” heart attack out of nowhere?
(Soft plaque). Calcium score doesn't see or look for soft plaque. (The real thing that causes sudden blockage).
^ This.
Insulin resistance, pre-diabetes, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome, all of which people can suffer from even if they're thin, increase the risk of heart disease and stroke more than anything we know. These increase the risk even more than obesity alone, more than smoking, and much more than high cholesterol.
-
Meaningless test.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/do-you-need-a-calcium-scan
"But people need to realize that these risk scores are imprecise. For some, they may overestimate risk. For others, especially younger people in their 40 and 50s, they may underestimate risk," says Dr. Blankstein.
IroNat ain't lying:
Atherosclerotic Plaque in Patients with Zero Calcium Score at Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography
"The frequency of atherosclerotic plaque with zero CS was relatively high, indicating that the absence of calcification does not exclude the presence of plaques, many of which obstructive, especially in non-obese subjects and alcohol drinkers."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5967134/
-
See above.
They are a good excuse for a doctor to put you on statins and mess you up.
CT scans are high radiation and good for increasing your cancer risk.
Get one every 3-5 years?
That's 10-13 CT scans over 40 years in addition to other X-rays you get over that period.
Radiation is cumulative.
https://www.webmd.com/cancer/radiation-doses-ct-scans
For me, every 3-5 years after the age of 45 wouldn't concern me too much (that's just my stance/opinion). Everyone's threshold is different.
Here's how I do it. Every year I get standard blood work (CBC, CMP, Lipid Panel, HgA1C, Liver function tests, TSH, Vitamin D).
Every 3 years I get Lipoprotein A blood work done and an EKG.
Every 5 years I get both an Echocardiogram and a Calcium Score Test.
For peace of mind, it makes me sleep easy at night.
"1"
-
You can find scientific legitimate medical research to support whatever you want to believe. Hope this helps.
-
For me, every 3-5 years after the age of 45 wouldn't concern me too much (that's just my stance/opinion). Everyone's threshold is different.
Here's how I do it. Every year I get standard blood work (CBC, CMP, Lipid Panel, HgA1C, Liver function tests, TSH, Vitamin D).
Every 3 years I get Lipoprotein A blood work done and an EKG.
Every 5 years I get both an Echocardiogram and a Calcium Score Test.
For peace of mind, it makes me sleep easy at night.
"1"
I highly recommend you test you fasting insulin and fasting blood glucose as well, with insulin being the most important of the two. One can have insulin resistance and high insulin, yet have normal fasting glucose and A1C, at least for a while before things get worse.
Another good one is LDL particle size. You want your LDL particles to be large and buoyant, not small and dense. The small particles are the ones that cause atherosclerosis even if your LDL is low.
-
I drink, smoke cigars, and use gear so a little extra radiation doesn’t really concern me. Also, not looking to live forever.
Why bother having a calcium test then?
-
I highly recommend you test you fasting insulin and fasting blood glucose as well, with insulin being the most important of the two. One can have insulin resistance and high insulin, yet have normal fasting glucose and A1C, at least for a while before things get worse.
Another good one is LDL particle size. You want your LDL particles to be large and buoyant, not small and dense. The small particles are the ones that cause atherosclerosis even if your LDL is low.
I like it and will add to my labs.
Thank you!
"1"
-
Meaningless test.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/do-you-need-a-calcium-scan
"But people need to realize that these risk scores are imprecise. For some, they may overestimate risk. For others, especially younger people in their 40 and 50s, they may underestimate risk," says Dr. Blankstein.
Nat, any thoughts on using red yeast rice daily. Same risks as a statin? I understand it contains what statin drugs contain in a natural form. I have a Calcium test done every 10yrs, always has been zero.
-
Did he have any underlying issues - obesity, family history, etc.? Or did he just have a “widow-maker” heart attack out of nowhere?
No family history, no drug use, no alcohol, etc. The point is, calcium scoring only see's calcium, so ZERO doesn't mean clean bill of health.
Need all the tests. Stress-echo (visual), nuclear stress, etc...
-
Nat, any thoughts on using red yeast rice daily. Same risks as a statin? I understand it contains what statin drugs contain in a natural form. I have a Calcium test done every 10yrs, always has been zero.
The stuff sold in the USA is mostly junk. Contains no monacolin-K (which is very safe and used in Asia for a million years, with very little heart disease).
A low-dose of 5-10 mg a day can be helpful for those who truly might need it. It can be bought from other countries if you look for it...
If you have no need (great numbers) then ignore it. If Trig's and LDL is very high and jacked-up, it "may" help things.
Way over-prescribed in the US (statins) a money grab...
-
Why bother having a calcium test then?
Need another 10-15 years.
-
Nat, any thoughts on using red yeast rice daily. Same risks as a statin? I understand it contains what statin drugs contain in a natural form. I have a Calcium test done every 10yrs, always has been zero.
No idea about red yeast, deadz.
-
I like it and will add to my labs.
Thank you!
"1"
You are welcome! May you enjoy many more decades of life and good health!
-
I think a regular treadmill stress EKG will be more useful to you than a calcium score.
If you are already dead set against a statin then you should ask yourself what you would do differently if your calcium score was elevated.
-
Nat, any thoughts on using red yeast rice daily. Same risks as a statin? I understand it contains what statin drugs contain in a natural form. I have a Calcium test done every 10yrs, always has been zero.
Artificially lowering LDL is a mistake. People with high LDL tend to live longer. What you want to do is increase your large, buoyant LDL particles and decrease your small, dense LDL particles. You want to decrease Triglycerides and increase HDL too.
You can accomplish all of the above by eating low-carb, or very low calorie, or practicing intermittent fasting.
Low Triglycerides–High High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Risk of Ischemic Heart Disease
"A high level of LDL-C is not associated with the metabolic syndrome per se,32 and when a high LDL-C level is present with a low TG–high HDL-C level, the LDL particle is larger, more buoyant,22,33 and less easily oxidized24 and thus much less atherogenic."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/647239
Effect of carbohydrate-restricted dietary interventions on LDL particle size and number in adults in the context of weight loss or weight maintenance: a systematic review and meta-analysis
"The available evidence indicates that dietary interventions restricted in carbohydrates increase LDL peak particle size and decrease the numbers of total and small LDL particles."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34159352/
-
Only fools take statins nowadays. Do some research.
Evaluating the Association Between Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction and Relative and Absolute Effects of Statin Treatment
"The study results suggest that the absolute benefits of statins are modest, may not be strongly mediated through the degree of LDL-C reduction, and should be communicated to patients as part of informed clinical decision-making as well as to inform clinical guidelines and policy."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2790055
The effect of statins on average survival in randomised trials, an analysis of end point postponement
"The median postponement of death for primary and secondary prevention trials were 3.2 and 4.1 days, respectively.
Statin treatment results in a surprisingly small average gain in overall survival within the trials' running time. For patients whose life expectancy is limited or who have adverse effects of treatment, withholding statin therapy should be considered."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26408281/
-
Nat, any thoughts on using red yeast rice daily. Same risks as a statin? I understand it contains what statin drugs contain in a natural form. I have a Calcium test done every 10yrs, always has been zero.
Red Yeast is good if you can stomach it. Gives most people major gas.
-
Red Yeast is good if you can stomach it. Gives most people major gas.
I've been using the Jarrow brand for years, never noticed any gas, works fairly well at keeping lipids in check. I don't notice the typical sides associate with statins, hopefully not as toxic as a statin. Currently use 2400mg daily as I use Test and lipids would be way off without it.
-
I've been using the Jarrow brand for years, never noticed any gas, works fairly well at keeping lipids in check. I don't notice the typical sides associate with statins, hopefully not as toxic as a statin. Currently use 2400mg daily as I use Test and lipids would be way off without it.
I may try that brand.
-
Red Yeast is good if you can stomach it. Gives most people major gas.
Gas in your turds makes them float.
Just some useful trivia for the next garden party.
-
My great aunt just passed away at 95. No tests. She told me in one of the last conversations that she just exercised regularly, ate in moderation and read a lot. Mind was sharp till the very end.
Let's not overthink this longevity shit, lol
-
Gas in your turds makes them float.
Just some useful trivia for the next garden party.
Can’t wait until my next garden party.
-
Can’t wait until my next garden party.
-
Gas in your turds makes them float.
Just some useful trivia for the next garden party.
I need that to stop clogging the toilet. :-[
-
Gas in your turds makes them float.
Just some useful trivia for the next garden party.
-
I like it and will add to my labs.
Thank you!
"1"
A CT Angiogram (CTA) is better than a calcium score test, and I'm sure you can afford it out of pocket. It's $500 to $800.
"While the calcium score is a risk assessment tool, CTCA is a diagnostic test that uses contrast dye to evaluate blood flow and identify narrowing or blockages in the coronary arteries."
https://heartcare.sydney/what-is-coronary-artery-calcium-score-and-when-is-it-indicated
-
A CT Angiogram (CTA) is better than a calcium score test, and I'm sure you can afford it out of pocket. It's $500 to $800.
"While the calcium score is a risk assessment tool, CTCA is a diagnostic test that uses contrast dye to evaluate blood flow and identify narrowing or blockages in the coronary arteries."
https://heartcare.sydney/what-is-coronary-artery-calcium-score-and-when-is-it-indicated
What’s the evidence that this is beneficial to someone without significant risk factors and/or symptoms of advanced cardiac disease? Or is this something you’re recommending based on a hunch?
-
What’s the evidence that this is beneficial to someone without significant risk factors and/or symptoms of advanced cardiac disease? Or is this something you’re recommending based on a hunch?
None, and I'm not recommending it. I simply said this test provides much more information than the calcium score test, which a couple of people on this thread said they've done or do periodically. It's up to each individual what and how much they want to test.
-
None, and I'm not recommending it. I simply said this test provides much more information than the calcium score test, which a couple of people on this thread said they've done or do periodically. It's up to each individual what and how much they want to test.
It does provide more information than the Ca score. It also exposes you to more radiation and requires dye that could affect the kidneys. I don't think it is as accurate or as useful as they portray it either. The accuracy may improve as the technology gets better but I still think they're years away from what they're selling it as right now in that video. Just my opinion as an anonymous nobody.
-
It does provide more information than the Ca score. It also exposes you to more radiation and requires dye that could affect the kidneys. I don't think it is as accurate or as useful as they portray it either. The accuracy may improve as the technology gets better but I still think they're years away from what they're selling it as right now in that video. Just my opinion as an anonymous nobody.
I myself wouldn't be eager to do it because of the radiation, the dye, the cost, and the value I'd get from it.
But it may have value for someone who has all of the risk factors or symptoms of atherosclerosis.