Coronary Artery Calcium Score Test Results | Calcium Score Test 

Wow, interesting! Did you have a LP-PLA2 test done? Apo-B?

Are you on HRT? If not, it estradiol will have protective benefits to your heart, bones and brain.

@@GiGi-fd6om yes, I am on the estradiol patches. Have been for 9 years. Best thing I ever did after menopause. Thank you.

Steve, I left you a comment above this one. I have an afterthought also, my husband is 67 also and he has always had perfect cholesterol numbers. He is extremely active. I am wondering can you have a perfect cholesterol number for years and still have calcification of the arteries? He's never had the test done. Thanks. BTW, is there a genetic component. He does not eat as healthy as I do and I'm the one who has higher LDL.

@@kathystclair9485, I’m thinking if your triglycerides are low and your HDL is high, you’re doing pretty well. Dr. Robert Lustig, the sugar doctor, has an excellent video on RU-vid explaining cholesterol levels.

CAC is a marker that may or may not be an indication of future heart problems. Your score is still quite low. I wouldn’t worry about it if you’re metabolically healthy and getting regular exercise

@bobmason1499 You're welcome. Happy to share my experience. As I say in the video - a CAC isn't the whole picture but it is a helpful, relatively inexpensive, and painless way to learn more about your heart risk.

Do I divide Triglycerides with HDL to get my ratio or the other way around? Thank you.

@@EEEBA1 T/HDL is the way to do it. Triglycerides divided by HDL

@@DanButterfield8 In that case I'm at 1.9. Thank you.

As a follow up… I very recently did a CAC (coronary artery calcium) score test. That’s basically an MRI of your heart to detect calcium deposits that have accumulated over many years. CAC is reputed to be a good risk marker for future cardiac events (heart attack or stroke) due to blockages. But a CAC can only detect hard (calcified) plaque and completely misses the potentially more dangerous and unstable soft plaque. But it’s nonetheless good to get a base line CAC, and at age 67 with very high LDL, I thought it would be a good test to get. The shocker for me was getting a 354 score! That’s considered “high risk” and on some scales “severe risk.” The cardiologist was concerned and scheduled me for an immediate (next day) cardio echo-gram and stress test. I was confident I would do well on the stress test as I can still run stairs and do HIIT cardio workouts with relative ease. I ran 800 meters as a 40+ masters athlete and still like to do regular runs albeit nothing close to the intensity level I did as a young man. Long story short. I did well as I expected on the stress test and once they maxed me out on on the treadmill (speed and elevation increasing until you reach the target rate rate or blood pressure reading) they immediately pushed me onto a bed where they ultrasounded my fast pumping heart to determine blood flow efficiency and recovery rate. Cardiologist said everything looked very good on both the echo-cardio-gram and stress test. He backed away from his initial recommendation that I go on a statin. The more I learn about CAC score, the less informing I think it is. Why? Because soft plaque is apparently more dangerous, and it is NOT captured at all on a CAC. Moreover, calcium deposits, while reflecting some “healed” (calcified) damage to artery walls, are stabilized. It is really inflammation and “unstable” soft plaque build up + diet and over all metabolic health, that are keys to heart health. And as previously noted, Triglycerides to HDL ratio is something to pay attention to. Target of 1.5 of lower is best and below 1 is excellent.

Bad news about your high CAC. Better about the deeper dive tests. I agree that CAC definitely has limitations, which I mentioned in the video. It is one test that’s simple, inexpensive, easy (unlike a stress test), and readily accessible for most people.

You should not order this test for clients who are professional aviators. See my post in the comments.

@Kimmer Statins are known to stabilize plaques and possibly reduce the chance of a clot forming. One way to find a doctor who understands ApoB and hormone optimization is here . . . simplehormones.com/referral

CAC is a tool that’s used to paint a picture of heart risk. As I explain in the video, it’s definitely not the final word but it is a very useful, inexpensive, and non-invasive way to see what’s happening in the heart.

@irock4u222 Definitely good to know so you can take action.

Ldl is not bad. That was just another lie by the medical/pharma systems. There is actually a negative relationship between ldl and mortality.

I just made an appointment at the radiology department of my local hospital. Insurance won’t cover CAC in most cases. I did not need a doctor’s referral.

​@@SimpleHormonesmedicare covers it.

The root cause is damage that is already done. No simple answers - No magic “Dr Pinkus” supplements. CAC is not a “monitoring” biometric you can manipulate like overall cholesterol, HDL, LDL, etc. Hopefully it is used it to inspire you to change lifestyle. Unfortunately, it is often fuel for the ordering of statins which might change your lipid profile but will not reduce your CAC score and, according to many long term studies, statistically, might not reduce all cause mortality.

Believe it or not it's excessive glucose in your body.

@@cookingwithcuyandotherfuns6238 try to find anything without sugar added any more. It’s out of control! Yet my MD doesn’t seem to care about anything but my LDLs

See my comment---exactly what happened to me.

The last time I had done was in a facility in Columbus ,OH. The cost was only 100. Well worth it to have Pease of mind!

@@kathystclair9485 One can safely assume that most of the cost of the procedure was covered by your Insurance… I was wondering how costly would it be for those not insured.

It is a CT scan and yes the cash price is typically around $100. Most insurances do not cover it but some do (mine did).

I paid $69. That includes the interpretation/score. Insurance BCBS/Anthem didn't cover it. I live in N.IN

It's less radiation than you get from the sun in any given year.

@@cookingwithcuyandotherfuns6238 A CIMT Ultrasound is zero radiation and measures current soft plaque. The CAC just shows Calcium that accumulated and is hardened from the past could be 20 years old. What advantage do you think the CAC over the CIMT Ultrasound

@reginamay2767 That's good news. Zero would be better but 22 is still relatively low. All of us will, eventually, develop calcified plaque in our heart. The key is to keep that process as slow as possible. As I mention in the video CAC is just one way to evaluate heart risk and it's clearly not foolproof. But a good piece of information nonetheless. Thanks for watching! Here's another video that explains the Danish Study - 40% reduction in heart risk with HRT. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GqGbWyNZU58.html

All my arteries were zero but the "widow maker" one. 26.

@Utbmingo2018 That’s an interesting perspective. I’ll try not to take personal offense. I prefer to think my personal experience informs my reactions to pharmaceuticals, rather than my ego. I’ve been a licensed, practicing pharmacist for over 3 decades. I worked for Big Pharma as an intern before my last year of pharmacy school. I recognize that statins have their place in reducing CVD risk. But they also have documented risks for increasing insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. Trusting science is fine. But there can be a very blurred line between trusting science and blindly believing there’s a magic pill for every ill. In my 30+ years as a pharmacist, I’ve become much less enamored with the science promoted by Big Pharma. In today’s age of readily available information, we all have the opportunity to do our own research and reach our own conclusions. I’m encouraging patients to take charge of their healthcare in cooperation with a trusted healthcare practitioner.

@@SimpleHormones I am in complete agreement with you! As for statins, the risks far outweigh the benefits in most cases, and, the absolute risk reduction that they actually provide is insignificant. Why take them when you can accomplish better results without the horrible side effects, by simply modifying your diet?

The cholesterol theory of causing heart disease or stroke is a fraud. This has been known since at least the early 1990s, by the public, when published info by a Dr. Curt Donsbach, exposed how the Framingham studies & other studies were corrupted to hide results that showed saturated fat & both dietary cholesterol & serum cholesterol are not the cause of arterial plaque, but only damaged or anaerobic LDL cholesterol, when coming into contact with calcium in the artery(cholesterol is the last substance to form plaque in the artery when it adheres to calcium & mixes with the other fatty pus-like substances that incudes enzymes & hormones)

This is a continuation: The damaged cholesterol that is deposited to aid in forming soft plaque, is really the result of inflammation, which is a chronic immune response. Inflammation can result from a number of causes, but genetic predisposition by itself is rarely a cause. Insulin resistance due to poor lifestyle habits, mainly a regular SAD, consisting of processed foods & too much carbs. Hyperglycemia is really metabolic syndrome(leaky gut) that causes damage to beta cells in the pancreas, that is responsible for dysfunctional insulin production & insulin-resistant receptor cells, that cause high blood sugar( hyperglycemia & fatty liver can result over time. This is a vicious cycle of inflammation that leads to any number of serious chronic conditions, & even sudden death from heart attack or stroke, if the poor habit(s) are not discontinued. Eventually, tissue & organ & blood vessel damage becomes irreversible, if there is no intervention.:

@user-dq3eb4yp9s Thanks for your valuable, thoughtful, and generous input. Have a wonderful day!