I'm a Lean Mass Hyper-Responder (LMHR) Now - You?

Roughly 60 to 70% of the population has some plaque by the time they are in their 60s.
Soft plaque is the most dangerous one and not detectable with a CAC scan. I recently Jan 2026 had my first CAC scan as a reference point moving forward something I can do on my own at a low cost. Even though CAC doesn't reveal the dangerous soft plaque if there is no change in my CAC over the years I will think that I have at least arrested the progression or if it continues maybe an excuse for the Non invasive angiogram.

Only a dye based non invasive CT angiogram or an invasive angiogram can detect soft plaque in and around your heart. Dye CT is fine and from what I understand and perfectly acceptable if no outright symptoms. Ive been exposed to so much radiation in the last couple years I doubt anymore will hurt me. *LOL*

Invasive Angiogram is still the gold method most likely used if there is real concern for blockage. Being I had one done about 5 years ago revealing min to moderate plaque found "all over the place"
I would love a cardiologist to be able to use an excuse for a follow up noninvasive Cardiac CT scan and I will add that to my list of requests for my specialists this year. WOW this thread is generating income for all the testing agencies and doctors! *LOL*

This is a good explanation
https://www.capitolcardiology.com/differences-between-cardiac-ct-scan-and-angiogram
 
Last edited:
alarmguy said:
Roughly 60 to 70% of the population has some plaque by the time they are in their 60s.
Soft plaque is the most dangerous one and not detectable with a CAC scan. I recently Jan 2026 had my first CAC scan as a reference point moving forward something I can do on my own at a low cost. Even though CAC doesn't reveal the dangerous soft plaque if there is no change in my CAC over the years I will think that I have at least arrested the progression or if it continues maybe an excuse for the Non invasive angiogram.

Only a dye based non invasive CT angiogram or an invasive angiogram can detect soft plaque in and around your heart. Dye CT is fine and from what I understand and perfectly acceptable if no outright symptoms. Ive been exposed to so much radiation in the last couple years I doubt anymore will hurt me. *LOL*

Angiogram is still the gold method most likely used if there is real concern for blockage. Being I had a angiogram done about 5 years ago and min to moderate plaque found "all over the place"
I would love a cardiologist to be able to use an excuse for a follow up noninvasive Cardiac CT scan and I will add that to my list of requests for my specialists this year. WOW this thread is generating income for all the testing agencies and doctors! *LOL*

This is a good explanation
https://www.capitolcardiology.com/differences-between-cardiac-ct-scan-and-angiogram
Click to expand...
I don't know where I am in this spectrum

Zero family history

Good overall lipid numbers - ignoring the generalized "cholesterol" . Low inflammation, good ALT, low triglycerides, larger size LDL particles, good HDL, etc

So I debate if I should do further CAC type things.

Maybe I should ask: Is there multistep program. Baby steps for checking plaque? Start where/what test? I know insurance won't cover it, docs see no need. Maybe I just stop there.
 
Pablo said:
I don't know where I am in this spectrum

Zero family history

Good overall lipid numbers - ignoring the generalized "cholesterol" . Low inflammation, good ALT, low triglycerides, larger size LDL particles, good HDL, etc

So I debate if I should do further CAC type things.

Maybe I should ask: Is there multistep program. Baby steps for checking plaque? Start where/what test? I know insurance won't cover it, docs see no need. Maybe I just stop there.
Click to expand...
The only way I know of to check for soft plaque around the heart is for your doctor to order either type of angiogram. I dont know the criteria he would have to use in order to do it. My doctor used the results of a nuclear stress test and symptoms I was describing to justify doing an invasive angiogram. Yes, I pushed for one as well, I dont know if it would have been done without. There were multiple things I think they could put in the request to my insurance company.

My personal opinion?
Call your doctor and ask him to order a CAC scan. Tell him you would like to do one "just because" I mean you are a diabetic and big risk factor.
Let him know that you know you have to pay for it and since I dont want to come across providing medial advice ask him if any other tests are needed.

Or do a search in your area and get one yourself. You dont need a referral for a CAC. Cost is only around $125

The reason I went to my doctor is because I have a cardiologist (not that you need one) so I just went into "MyChart" and sent a message to his office asking them to order one, that I knew I had to pay for it, wanted it for a reference for the future and it was done, hospital called me within a day or two to schedule. The reason I did it through him is we now are in a more rural area and I like the nice new facilities at a hospital here within driving distance. plus the staff there is super great. I was unsure if I could order the imaging on my own at the hospital. If I did it on my own at another place without his referral I would have had to wait a little longer.

There are multiple resources to order one on your own most likely in any area of the country. I just didnt need too however better yet for me with known CVD since my cardiologist ordered it and I paid, it is now a record in my file. This might help build a case in the future for a more extensive follow up to my last invasive angiogram 5+ years ago with maybe the non invasive angiogram. Im super proactive because of family history now that I am nearing 70 I really would like another one to see how it is going. Since I know my levels of plaque soft and hard were around the 20 % range (very good) back then, I would like to know if they got worse and by how much.

Every scan I get which is also an annual lung scan and also PSMA pet scan the calcium in my arteries is mentioned in those reports too (noted as mild to moderate) because it shows up. I actually have the images, calcium shows up bright white in the scans.
 
Last edited:
Can't hurt to ask! I'm not rushing this part of my journey though. While I do have one foot in the high risk bucket for sure, I want to continue to minimize THAT risk.

I still very much think I need to eliminate MORE visceral fat. More emphasis on correct exercise than diet methinks. Which means backwards logic, improve diet still and get going!!! Yeah and OMAD
 
Pablo said:
Can't hurt to ask! I'm not rushing this part of my journey though. While I do have one foot in the high risk bucket for sure, I want to continue to minimize THAT risk.

I still very much think I need to eliminate MORE visceral fat. More emphasis on correct exercise than diet methinks. Which means backwards logic, improve diet still and get going!!! Yeah and OMAD
Click to expand...
Yes! Because even with discovered plaque you have to do what you are doing now anyway which is much more than the general population doesn't do even after they discover the plaque.

Just like diets, most end up not changing their lifestyle in the slightest. Much like my much loved brother who sadly... who knows how much longer he will go on. I know me and another sibling dont feel too long. Never changed even from a quad bypass 20 years ago and stents years later and now some heart veins arteries are completely blocked, nothing can be done and only has a very limited amount now supplying blood to his heart muscles...

This is one reason for my craziness, my dad was another, but my dad at least tried, we just didnt have the technology and drugs that are available to my brother who doesn't try at all.

I am as my sister says, the polar opposite of him. Now if I just didnt get prostate cancer !!! *LOL* I'll have a clear idea on that in the next 3 months with 3 different specialists and 3 different blood panels. (which I am going to ask some of them to add to the list of tests)
Im expecting nothing but good ... anyone who has been through it, hopes that they dont get an unpleasant surprise though.
 
Speaking of brothers...........mine................

Perfect numbers all around and A1C of 4. WTAH!! He is a meatatarian though. He plays geezer soccer and swims in his pool for exercise and is always doing house buying and difficult renovations mostly own labor. The guy has no sign or diabeatus whatsoever!!
 
Last edited:
Here are my latest health tools.
Neighbor is moving and didn't want to move his weight lifting machine and bench - $100, so I brought it home, set it up in our covered bus/car port, and will find/get some free weights off marketplace asap. Everything I read/watch says we need to lift weights.
and
Ebay/NOS $30 - Garmin 305 GPS/Heart rate devise for my cycling. My old one the elastic chest strap was rotted. Last time I road with my ole 305 was 2016.
DSCN9508.webp

DSCN9509.webp
 
Here's a video link by Dr. Ford Brewer talking about the CIMT test etc. In the video notes is a link to get his no cost 28-page pdf, a 7-step guide to knowing risk, fixing metabolism, and reversing arterial plaque



.
 
jetman said:
Here's a video link by Dr. Ford Brewer talking about the CIMT test etc. In the video notes is a link to get his no cost 28-page pdf, a 7-step guide to knowing risk, fixing metabolism, and reversing arterial plaque



.
Click to expand...

I like Dr Brewer. He just really established creditability in my mind. I know a lot about this disease and pretty much everything he speaks of I was told by my cardiologist. So I knew it, except for the CIMT test and I may go for one however ... he was very honest if you really listen and watch the video and I give him credit for that. (except for my point in #4 below)

1. First the good news Dr Brewer establishes CT Angiogram as the gold standard for non intervention monitoring of plaque. With that said the absolute gold standard for detecting and categorizing plaque around the heart is an invasive Cardiac Angogram. Much more expensive and I assume no one is going to do one on a person without symptoms. So that is ok, since we are talking about monitoring and investigating a CT Angiogram as he says is the gold standard in this case. (my BP is normal even though I have a lot of calcified plaque)

2. He and many doctors are not fans of CAC scans. However I did get a differing opinion from my own cardiologist NP who told me not to tell my doctor she said it *LOL* BTW- she is the one who "structured" my insurance company approval for the invasive Cardiac Angiogram that I received.
So Im not discounting Dr Brewers thoughts on CAC scoring but still it can be used as a cheap aid with someone who has established arterial plaque. At least for me. Why? Because most soft plaque eventually turns into calcified more stable plaque so you do get a clear idea of what is all over the place inside of you. Since it shows calcified plaque it will maybe also explain higher blood pressure because hardening of the arteries is from calcified plaque. So it is a "window" at least partially on what is going on.

So starting this year, if I go for a CAC scan every year or two or even three years and I see my CAC score stay the same for me personally I will see myself as my new way of eating and also controlling blood sugar has put a stop to the profession of plaque. Still this is more to me like getting my own blood panels, defiantly not something to rely on for self diagnosis but if I see my score ever increasing I need to have a discussion with my doctor. Since I pay for it myself I do have my doctor order it, so it part of my medical record, he even sent me a message that he looked over it. I see him in the later part of the year, every year.

3. CIMT I certainly think this is a cool idea that Dr Brewer presents. I mean, I can REALLY align myself to his way of thinking. To me (lack of better words) a poor mans way to check on plaque without paying for a CT angiogram. I do see it that most people will not be willing to spend that money on a CT angiogram IF their insurance company will not so I guess we can call it the next best thing. I myself am curious. Based on your posts I am going to push as see if my Cardiologist can get a CT angiogram approved for me. If not I will do a CIMT. The thing about all of this is that, diet is key, so if you're eating right that is all you have and statins.

4. Dr Brewer is a strong believer in the CIMT and I would trust him and his office for the right way it gets done but even he explains if its not done exactly right you will get different results which brings back angiogram gold standard methods. (either one)
Since he is a strong believer in the CIMT, in his zest for it he does add a few almost derogatory words about the AI CT Angogram which is really unfounded. He brings up the radioactive dye of the procedure. I mean, big deal, it's nothing if you want the gold standard without the guess work of the CIMT. I mean, I am sure the scan itself takes around 15 minutes plus time for the dye to be injected.

I REALLY like this video, anyone who has a concern should watch it and discuss with their doctor. I would say though, if their doctor suggests a CT angiogram go for it! On my own, I would/will do a CIMT if I have to pay for it.
I think my doctor can make a case for a CT angiogram based on a past one form 5 years ago and the recent CAC scan however I am not so sure an insurance company will pay for one as a "preventive' investigation vs a symptom based diagnosis tool. Actually I'm almost sure of it *LOL*
 
Last edited:
jetman said:
Here are my latest health tools.

Ebay/NOS $30 - Garmin 305 GPS/Heart rate devise for my cycling. My old one the elastic chest strap was rotted. Last time I road with my ole 305 was 2016.
Click to expand...
The max heart rate formula, 220bpm - my age 68, still doesn't work well for me. I've always been able to get 15bpm more than the the formula. So instead of setting a max HR of 152 bpm based on the generic formula, I set a max of 165 bpm in my Garmin 305.
So exercise zones end up being
1 = 85-99
2 = 99-115
3 = 115-132
4 = 132-149
5 = 149-165

Most of my daily workouts/exercise these days are near our TX home in an area called "The TX Hill Country". It's not flat :)

So, this am I put on my new to me Garmin 305 w/HR monitor and did my 1 hr morning walk around the neighborhood. My HR on levelish grd was 90ish (level1). Max HR going up hills was 128 (level3). Avg was 105 (level2).

Then I went out and did my daily hilly hide. I reached a max hr of 164 twice when I did a couple intervals on a climb. I averaged a HR of 139bpm(level4) on this 1 hr ride.
 
This mornings thoughts for me is I am doing good, walking a tight rope between heart disease and pre diabetes and a bout with cancer. I know I have the "pre" part under control, Time will tell if there is such a thing as a cure though but Im good with that, I like my new way of eating.
So the only thing I have to focus on for me is the heart disease and that will be steady as she goes with what I am doing for all three above.
Regarding the high fat stuff, in my situation I cant go for that. I'll still look to eat lean meats, low fat and at the same time eliminate processed wheat and foods. This will work for me and it kind of has been for a long time.

Which leads me to this, showed up on a story earlier, so I did a simple search, the amount of returns are from a lot of sources.
I just posting this one source because it is short, brief and from a respected medical network.

By the way, I truly feel we have 100 years more of learning about the human body, maybe AI will speed of the process, we dont understand so much about it.
They dont quite understand the relationship here and the "why" but it's there. It seems like high cholesterol is associated with a high rate of breast cancer. Just search the subject. This source below also states other cancers. They dont understand it but associated high cholesterol helping cancer metastasize (spread) It helps cancer cells live.

I think balance is the key, swinging too far one way opens the door for another is my feeling.
https://corporate.dukehealth.org/ne...s-cancer-fostering-resistance-form-cell-death

There are dozens of sources if you do a search, this is only one.
 
alarmguy said:
By the way, I truly feel we have 100 years more of learning about the human body, maybe AI will speed of the process, we dont understand so much about it.
Click to expand...
I agree
alarmguy said:
They dont quite understand the relationship here and the "why" but it's there. It seems like high cholesterol is associated with a high rate of breast cancer. Just search the subject. This source below also states other cancers. They dont understand it but associated high cholesterol helping cancer metastasize (spread) It helps cancer cells live.

I think balance is the key, swinging too far one way opens the door for another is my feeling.
https://corporate.dukehealth.org/ne...s-cancer-fostering-resistance-form-cell-death

There are dozens of sources if you do a search, this is only one.
Click to expand...
"ASSOCIATED", "RESPECTED MEDICAL NETWORK" don't carry much weight with me.
 
jetman said:
I agree

"ASSOCIATED", "RESPECTED MEDICAL NETWORK" don't carry much weight with me.
Click to expand...
All good 🙃 we are all different and do what we need to do. Informed and educated decisions goes a long way to having a conversation with doctors.

That’s why I said a simple search will reveal dozens of conversations about the subject. However, Duke is a provider of reliable information and a leading Cancer center but here is another one among dozens.
Many people read these forums and threads so it’s good for everybody to have a cross-section of thoughts. Especially when the posts in here are not from doctors who research cancer.

“Increased serum cholesterol levels have been reported to be positively correlated with a higher risk of developing cancers, such as colon, rectal, prostatic and testicular cancer [7,8]. A meta-analysis suggested that dietary cholesterol intake increases the risk of breast cancer”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6405981/

..
 
Last edited:
Pablo said:
I have listened to this while driving. Intriguing:

Click to expand...

Well, I just spent an hour as I’m cutting and edging the lawn and listening to this. There is so much talk. I have no clue what they are recanting in a failed study.
Where their assumptions wrong or right?
And what the heck were those assumptions?
Lol
OK, I’m going back to finish the lawn🤣
Maybe if I listen while I’m not doing something later I’ll get it but it just sounded like 50 minutes of excuses/explanation and five minutes of content
 
alarmguy said:
Well, I just spent an hour as I’m cutting and edging the lawn and listening to this. There is so much talk. I have no clue what they are recanting in a failed study.
Where their assumptions wrong or right?
And what the heck were those assumptions?
Lol
OK, I’m going back to finish the lawn🤣
Maybe if I listen while I’m not doing something later I’ll get it but it just sounded like 50 minutes of excuses/explanation and five minutes of content
Click to expand...
That's how I feel about all these artery videos...ahhahahaaahahaa.....wasting my time!!

You know how Nick is, Mr Nuance. It answers all that is the video, you need to follow, I could while driving, no need to see their mugs..........but this is definitely is not a health - or get healthy video. It's a "sausage construction" video............a video that could be even valuable for people who groove on Oil Geek vids and his crap analysis and nothing ever blind. The talkie details - on studies and responsible data analysis and reporting. A bit on calling back and being an honest scientist.

It does sound like Clearly screwed up and how humans and AI bias data reporting.

If something smells wrong, it probably is wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Please discuss Pre-diabetes here
2 3
Replies
52
Views
7K
M56959
Back
Top Bottom