CAC is great for detecting calcified plaque in your coronary arteries. But before you have calcified plaque, the above risk factors tell you about the buildup of soft plaque. And 4 out of 5 of them are modifiable through lifestyle, exercise, and medication.
Given the low side effect rate and limited overall impact, shouldn't the bar for deciding to take statins be near-zero? Like, the articles say if there's a 5% chance of a heart attack in the next 10 years there's no reason to take a statin, but if the statin changes that 5% to 4% (that's speculation on my part) then given the limited side effects it would likely be worth it, right?
Saw your link, did your test and here's my feedback.
No "share" or "download" button in the app? Sure, "apps are cool" and all that - but what about folks who want to archive or share their health data? AFAIK literally no provision to share all those nifty biomarkers with my doctor (except many, many screenshots)?
Nowhere in the "how to get blood test" email instructions does it bother to mention a urine sample will also be needed. Kinda useful to know if you should not pee right before heading to the lab.
This test is also being heavily misused and misinterpreted in some online communities. There are a lot of people posting CAC scan results after something like a year of keto dieting in their 20s or 30s and using that to conclude that the saturated fat connection to atherosclerosis is a myth or that high cholesterol is fine.
These tests don’t have perfect accuracy and resolution, so low or zero results don’t mean that a lifetime of high cholesterol won’t catch up with someone in their 60s and 70s, yet a lot of podcasters and social media influencers are making those claims.
This is correct advice, thank you. I am reminded once again that correlation != causation and that doing tests 'just to be sure' is not a healthy or safe way to live. There is a lot of literature out this on what makes a good screening test.
These tests expose one to a fairly high dose of radiation. From a quick googling, there does seem quite a range in exposures for this test. That being said, you probably don't want to get one of these scan every year.
My cardiologist pointed out that hard calcified plaques are unlikely to come loose, so unless there’s significant narrowing, they’re not a big problem. However, that situation correlates with a high calcium score. So the calcium score is not always correlated to risk.
A CT angiogram distinguishes soft vs. hard plaques (and shows narrowing), so that’s the ultimate way to clarify the situation. (Bearing in mind radiation exposure risk and cost, of course.)
My experience is, your total cholesterol is over 200 (with some more specifics about LDL I can't recall, like 130 or something), all doctors everywhere will then hound you incessantly to get on Crestor, immediately. Diet and exercise don't matter (they cite research showing it doesn't make a difference). Whether you have plaque or not isn't considered, you need to be on Crestor right now to prevent it from starting anyway.
My cholesterol started really going up in my late 40s and I can concur an aggressive change to my diet where I significantly reduced my saturated fat intake and I lost about 20 pounds made absolutely no difference, and my total cholesterol started hitting 300, so I'm on the Crestor. My initial dose did cause me to have elevated liver enzymes and my total cholesterol went to about 170 in about a month, so I'm on an extremely low dose on alternating days.
The first sign of trouble was chest pains while playing tennis. The pain subsided after a couple of minutes and I was fine. EKG showed no sign of heart attack or major blockage. Prior to that I had no symptoms whatsoever, exercised regularly, never smoked, 57yo male, 6 ft, 175lbs. A CAC scan revealed a calcium score of 411 and a stress test indicated a major lack blood flow to the front of the heart. A cardiac catheterization revealed 95% blockage of the Left Anterior Descending artery, the widowmaker. After placing two stents in the LAD I’m back to normal. It’s a small miracle I didn’t die that day on the tennis court. The CAC definitively diagnosed the life threatening blockage when I had absolutely no symptoms. I recommend everyone get this simple scan to find out if you have this killer inside of you.
A cardiologist told me (after a calcium test showed 95th percentile for calcium) that what I was looking for was a rapid drop in ability. Not over a decade, but over a couple weeks or a month. Well, I play ultimate, and one day I realized "I didn't get this winded a month ago". So I got a stress test, and it showed "abnormal motion of the heart wall under stress" (that is, not enough oxygen getting to all the heart muscles). They did a catheterization, and I wound up with two stents.
I mean, look, if you get the chest pains, don't ignore that. But it doesn't have to be that way. If you lose athletic ability, or wind, or endurance, in a short amount of time, get a stress test.
I got pitched (along with a bunch of other people at an investment conference) on an insanely expensive concierge medicine service and they trotted out some super impressive doctor who was fascinating. Anyway the thing that stuck was that he said it takes 10-20 years for meaningful advances in medicine to show up in general use, which was a little depressing
After I had a heart attack I was told that there’s no value in doing this test at that point. A couple years later at age 40 another doctor did order it for me and my score was 0, which apparently tells me I’m not on the verge of another heart attack, so that’s nice.
Statins are a lot like climate change. Two sides, the establishment versus outsiders, each claiming their side is correct, arguing over mountains of data that you can never personally verify.
However, there is zero financial incentive for a physician to prescribe a statin. They are all generic medications. A month prescription is approximately $10.
We do not yet have final word on this topic, we will have a better understanding as time progresses, but until then I continue to recommend statins to my patients with appropriate risk factors, for the same reasons I find climate change credible. The data showing benefit is not just limited to the United States, it is international, and to essentially falsify something involving millions of individuals and thousands of researchers around the world just isn't feasible.
CAC is pretty common, but I prefer Coronary CT Angiography, which is much more detailed CT of the heart and coronary arteries using IV contrast. It's a bit more radiation, but it shows soft plaque and arterial narrowing, which CAC does not.
can attest that this test is worth it. despite having no symptoms i decided to take at 32 yo it since I have a family history of cardio problems. altho no calcified plaque was found, it uncovered other serious issues I wouldn't have know about otherwise for probably a decade or two. if you call around different radiology labs you can get it for as low as $200 -- be warned tho many places (esp hospitals in my exp) will quote far higher numbers.
Researchers have discovered that gut bacteria produce a molecule that not only induces but also causes atherosclerosis, the accumulation of fat and cholesterol in the arteries that can lead to heart attacks and strokes.
I got a CAC scan for $75 just to catch anything crazy and I found out that I don't have a right coronary artery and also that I have 2 superior vena cava. My calcium score was 0 though so that's awesome.
One close friend died of a heart attack at 42 and another found a 95% blockage after his CAC scan came back north of 900 at age 40. I'd get it if it's available, the ability to catch certain catastrophic conditions is invaluable.
“20% risk means we need to without a doubt medicate people for the rest of their life!”
This really says something to me about American medicine. Something is going to get you at some point. Is something that has a 80% risk of not happening really justify medication which comes with it own cost and risk?
Another article on this topic was posted a few weeks ago and prompted the same reaction in me.
One thing I’ve wondered is why getting a diagnostic test done out of pocket in the US of your own volition (without a doc prescription) isn’t possible. Why does it need to be controlled by a doc and insurance?
In India this is common. They probably use the same expensive machines for x rays and MRIs but anyone can walk in, and pay for a diagnostic test and get numbers (well, not everyone can afford it, but generally middle class folks can). I’m not saying the healthcare system in India is great, but this distinction intrigues me. Maybe the volumes are much higher in India so the diagnostic center can recoup costs? Are there laws preventing this business model in the US?
I recently requested this test from my doctor. The lab technician asked if I had requested it or my doctor, and gave a very judgmental "that's what I thought" type response. Ends up I was 95%-tile and put on an aggressive statin therapy, from a risk profile that otherwise didn't determine statin use. The test was easy and (relatively speaking) inexpensive. It helped me in risk stratification in a determinative way.
It cost <$200 to go pay cash and get a calcium score yourself. Its hard to talk a cardiologist into getting your insurance to pay for it if you're young. As a male who had a grandfather die in his 30's from heart disease it was even hard. If you're worried about this at all just pay for it yourself. I also reccomend getting Lp(a) testing (<$50) if this concerns you, DYOR, but it will give you a better grasp on how your body is handles bad cholesterol (everyone is different).
If you have all your numbers, you can run your own risk calculation. Definitely useful before deciding on this scan, or when talking to your doctor about statins (a lifetime drug).
It is surprising that no one has mentioned antioxidants and green tea yet.
Cholesterol is a substance the body naturally produces and requires for many functions. In the brain, cholesterol is essential for building and maintaining neuronal membranes, supporting synapse formation, and enabling myelin production. Statins interfere with cholesterol synthesis in the brain and have been associated in some cases with brain fog or short-term memory issues.
Cholesterol itself is not inherently harmful. It is oxidized cholesterol that causes atherosclerosis.
Antioxidants such as those found in green tea help prevent LDL oxidation.
35 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 62.4 ms ] thread(coronary artery calcium testing)
* ApoB - about 20% of people with normal cholesterol results will have abnormal ApoB, and be at risk of heart disease.
* Lp(a) - the strongest hereditary risk factor for heart disease.
* hs-CRP - inflammation roughly doubles your risk of heart disease
* HbA1c - insulin resistance is a risk factor for just about everything.
* eGFR - estimates the volume of liquid your kidneys can filter, and is an input to the latest heart disease risk models (PREVENT).
Easy to order online: https://www.empirical.health/product/comprehensive-health-pa...
CAC is great for detecting calcified plaque in your coronary arteries. But before you have calcified plaque, the above risk factors tell you about the buildup of soft plaque. And 4 out of 5 of them are modifiable through lifestyle, exercise, and medication.
No "share" or "download" button in the app? Sure, "apps are cool" and all that - but what about folks who want to archive or share their health data? AFAIK literally no provision to share all those nifty biomarkers with my doctor (except many, many screenshots)?
Nowhere in the "how to get blood test" email instructions does it bother to mention a urine sample will also be needed. Kinda useful to know if you should not pee right before heading to the lab.
These tests don’t have perfect accuracy and resolution, so low or zero results don’t mean that a lifetime of high cholesterol won’t catch up with someone in their 60s and 70s, yet a lot of podcasters and social media influencers are making those claims.
Imagine claiming "my diet is great, i got 0% on my calcium score" when that just means you have the same score as 95%+ of people at age 40.
By 55, 25% of people start showing some % of calcium and at 65, 75% of people have a reading on calcium score.
So anyone under 45 being proud of a zero score is just silly.
Can this plaque be reversed?
A CT angiogram distinguishes soft vs. hard plaques (and shows narrowing), so that’s the ultimate way to clarify the situation. (Bearing in mind radiation exposure risk and cost, of course.)
My experience is, your total cholesterol is over 200 (with some more specifics about LDL I can't recall, like 130 or something), all doctors everywhere will then hound you incessantly to get on Crestor, immediately. Diet and exercise don't matter (they cite research showing it doesn't make a difference). Whether you have plaque or not isn't considered, you need to be on Crestor right now to prevent it from starting anyway.
My cholesterol started really going up in my late 40s and I can concur an aggressive change to my diet where I significantly reduced my saturated fat intake and I lost about 20 pounds made absolutely no difference, and my total cholesterol started hitting 300, so I'm on the Crestor. My initial dose did cause me to have elevated liver enzymes and my total cholesterol went to about 170 in about a month, so I'm on an extremely low dose on alternating days.
A cardiologist told me (after a calcium test showed 95th percentile for calcium) that what I was looking for was a rapid drop in ability. Not over a decade, but over a couple weeks or a month. Well, I play ultimate, and one day I realized "I didn't get this winded a month ago". So I got a stress test, and it showed "abnormal motion of the heart wall under stress" (that is, not enough oxygen getting to all the heart muscles). They did a catheterization, and I wound up with two stents.
I mean, look, if you get the chest pains, don't ignore that. But it doesn't have to be that way. If you lose athletic ability, or wind, or endurance, in a short amount of time, get a stress test.
However, there is zero financial incentive for a physician to prescribe a statin. They are all generic medications. A month prescription is approximately $10.
We do not yet have final word on this topic, we will have a better understanding as time progresses, but until then I continue to recommend statins to my patients with appropriate risk factors, for the same reasons I find climate change credible. The data showing benefit is not just limited to the United States, it is international, and to essentially falsify something involving millions of individuals and thousands of researchers around the world just isn't feasible.
https://english.elpais.com/health/2025-07-17/revolution-in-m...
Apparently eating too much cheese is a large risk factor.
One close friend died of a heart attack at 42 and another found a 95% blockage after his CAC scan came back north of 900 at age 40. I'd get it if it's available, the ability to catch certain catastrophic conditions is invaluable.
This really says something to me about American medicine. Something is going to get you at some point. Is something that has a 80% risk of not happening really justify medication which comes with it own cost and risk?
Another article on this topic was posted a few weeks ago and prompted the same reaction in me.
In India this is common. They probably use the same expensive machines for x rays and MRIs but anyone can walk in, and pay for a diagnostic test and get numbers (well, not everyone can afford it, but generally middle class folks can). I’m not saying the healthcare system in India is great, but this distinction intrigues me. Maybe the volumes are much higher in India so the diagnostic center can recoup costs? Are there laws preventing this business model in the US?
https://tools.acc.org/ascvd-risk-estimator-plus/#!/calculate...
Cholesterol is a substance the body naturally produces and requires for many functions. In the brain, cholesterol is essential for building and maintaining neuronal membranes, supporting synapse formation, and enabling myelin production. Statins interfere with cholesterol synthesis in the brain and have been associated in some cases with brain fog or short-term memory issues.
Cholesterol itself is not inherently harmful. It is oxidized cholesterol that causes atherosclerosis.
Antioxidants such as those found in green tea help prevent LDL oxidation.