Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low Carb Health & Technical Forums > Cholesterol, Heart Disease
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91   ^
Old Fri, Feb-10-17, 04:26
amergin's Avatar
amergin amergin is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 267
 
Plan: Low carb, suff. protein
Stats: 115/103/95 Male 191cm
BF:
Progress: 60%
Location: dublin
Default

I think it's worth highlighting the following point, following on from the posts below..

Quote:
Originally Posted by khrussva
I found this...

How to Reverse Heart Disease with the Coronary Calcium Score

There are lots of "what to do" strategies in this article. I find it interesting that I am already doing a lot of them with my dietary changes. I also liked the sound of this..

So apparently it is possible to actually improve your score.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Liz53
My understanding is that age is a factor when assigning a score. The amount of calcium deposits is being compared with others of your age or age group. So, yes, if you can reduce the rate of calcium deposit below the average rate for your group, you can lower your score (without reducing amount of current calcium deposits).

It's too bad you can't know how much calcium was laid down before LC and since. Bottom line: chances are you are doing exactly what you should be doing to keep from growing your risk.


On the specific point of whether it is possible to reduce either Calcium Score or Plaque Volume, the linked article quoted by Khrussva, "How to Reverse Heart Disease" by Jeffrey Dach, itself contains the following quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JD
"The Track Your Plaque Program, by William Davis MD
1) ....
2) ....
3) The Main Treatment Goal is the reduction in Coronary Artery Calcium Score, and by inference, reduction in plaque volume and reduction in cardiovascular mortality. The cardiology community still awaits the hard data on these results (CHD mortality and CHD events, treatment arm vs no treatment arm). These numbers have not been published as far as I know.

How to Measure Success in Halting or Reversing Heart Disease Plaque


According to Dr. Davis, calcium score typically increases at an astonishing rate of 30-35% per year without treatment. Therefore, Dr. Davis considers treatment success to be reduction in this rate from 30 to perhaps only a 5-10 per cent increase in calcium score per year. An absolute reduction in calcium score on follow up scanning is the optimal outcome, which is difficult to achieve even with strict adherence to the Track Your Plaque program, in Dr Daviss experience."


Following on from Liz53's info on score being age weighted, it appears to be possible to reduce the score at the same time as the plaque and calcium volume is increasing?
There appears to be no evidence that plaque or calcium, once laid down, can ever be removed, much as I would wish that to be the case. If anyone has any hard evidence to the contrary I would be glad to her it.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #92   ^
Old Fri, Feb-10-17, 09:03
khrussva's Avatar
khrussva khrussva is offline
Posts: 5,466
 
Plan: My own - < 30 net carbs
Stats: 440/200/210 Male 5' 11"
BF:Energy Unleashed
Progress: 104%
Location: Central Virginia - USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amergin
On the specific point of whether it is possible to reduce either Calcium Score or Plaque Volume ...

Following on from Liz53's info on score being age weighted, it appears to be possible to reduce the score at the same time as the plaque and calcium volume is increasing?
There appears to be no evidence that plaque or calcium, once laid down, can ever be removed, much as I would wish that to be the case. If anyone has any hard evidence to the contrary I would be glad to her it.

Liz is right in that age is a factor. But I don't think the score is weighed. I think that the score you get places you in a different percentile of risk based on your age. With my score I'm in the 90th percentile for a 53 year old male. Yikes! But if I was 70 my score would have put me in the 50th percentile. If I was 90, that score would be well below the 50th percentile. So I don't think that the actual calcium score changes with respect to age, but the score as a "risk factor" assessment is age dependent.

The Ivor Cummins video that Janet provided the link for indicates a significantly reduced risk of a CVD event if the rate of increased calcification is less that 15% per year. The cardiologist that I saw told me that those who are increasing their calcification at alarming rates (20% to 35% per year) are those that are not making significant lifestyle changes to address their CVD risk factors. Given the lifestyle changes I've made over the past 3 years he believes that I've put the breaks on as far as increased calcification goes. He didn't expect my score to change much in one year and suggested that I wait 2 or 3 years to have another Heart Calcium Scan done. I hope he is right, but I don't think I can wait that long. I was pretty heart sick (no pun intended) when I received the news of my calcium scan. I have since learned that my risk of a heart attach may not fall in line the statistics associated with my score. I want to know if my lifestyle has stopped or slowed down the rate of calcification in my arteries. I will retest next January.

Apparently there is some small rat study that was done that seemed to indicate that artery calcification can potentially be reduced with high doses of vitamin K2. In other words, it might be possible to actually improve your calcium score. I don't know how applicable this might be to humans. It certainly needs more study. I tried to find that rat study to provide a link. I couldn't find it. But I did come across this recent article on the potential benefits of vitamin K2:

Vitamin K2: new research confirms essential role in heart health

The entire article is good, but I found this section very encouraging given my circumstances:

Quote:
Breakthrough intervention trial

At this point, only observational data suggested a link between vitamin K2 intake and cardiovascular health, but intervention trials with cardiovascular endpoints had been lacking. That was no longer the case once a groundbreaking 3-year study was published, confirming this association.

Researchers at the R&D Group VitaK of Maastricht University in the Netherlands monitored 244 healthy postmenopausal women for 3 years using pulse wave velocity and ultrasound techniques. The participants were randomly assigned to take a nutritional dose (180g) of vitamin K2 as MK-7 (as MenaQ7 from NattoPharma) or a placebo capsule daily for 3 years.1

After 3 years of treatment, the Stiffness Index in the MK-7 group had decreased significantly compared with the slight increase in the placebo group (Figure 2). Results confirmed that MenaQ7 not only inhibited age-related stiffening of the artery walls, but also made a statistically significant improvement of vascular elasticity, especially in women with high arterial stiffness. According to the researchers, the data demonstrated that a nutritional dose of vitamin K2 as MK-7 (as MenaQ7) promotes cardiovascular health.

Improved vascular elasticity sounds good to me. That's a good enough reason for me to to make sure I'm getting enough K2 from natural sources or supplements.

Good natural sources of vitamin K2 are from sources like eggs, butter, & beef. It may be that increased carbs, BG, and insulin levels were not the only issues with the trend towards a low fat 'heart healthy" diet. Reduced consumption of the right fatty foods may have created a vitamin K2 deficiency, compounding the problem as far as CVD risk goes. Meat, butter, and eggs might actually be the "heart healthy" foods and we were eating less of them. I know I switched from eggs to cereal, butter for margarine, and less red meat for a number of years trying to eat "healthy" as I was told to. It didn't work for my weight nor my metabolic health, and more than likely increased my risk for CVD.

I was not big into taking supplements before, but since I had that calcium scan done I have added supplements to my daily regimen. Between now and my next heart calcium scan I will be supplementing with vitamin C, D3, K2 and magnesium. I will stick to my version of a LCHF + high fiber diet and I will continue my daily exercise. This is a serious N=1 experiment. I'm hoping for good results. If not, I may feel compelled to follow doctor's orders and take a statin.

Last edited by khrussva : Fri, Feb-10-17 at 13:04.
Reply With Quote
  #93   ^
Old Fri, Feb-10-17, 10:38
DelaneyLC's Avatar
DelaneyLC DelaneyLC is offline
Posts: 1,933
 
Plan: Atkins '72
Stats: 188/143/144 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 102%
Location: NV
Default

Ken, just be careful with the K2 if you are taking a daily aspirin.
Reply With Quote
  #94   ^
Old Fri, Feb-10-17, 11:35
khrussva's Avatar
khrussva khrussva is offline
Posts: 5,466
 
Plan: My own - < 30 net carbs
Stats: 440/200/210 Male 5' 11"
BF:Energy Unleashed
Progress: 104%
Location: Central Virginia - USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DelaneyLC
Ken, just be careful with the K2 if you are taking a daily aspirin.

Thanks for the warning. I did read up on it, though. It is K1 that works to improve blood clotting, thus counteracting the effects of the low dose aspirin. Vitamin K2 (MK4 & MK7) help with the proper distribution of calcium. I read this in several places, but here is a link to one that I found in a quick search...

Quote:
Does taking vitamin K counteract the benefits of taking a daily baby aspirin?

Aspirin thins the blood and vitamin K1 causes blood to clot. So, yes, they do tend to counteract each other. However, vitamin K is more complex as there's vitamin K1 and vitamin K2. In a hospital environment when we have a Coumadin overdose and the blood is too thin and we want to neutralize it quickly, we will administer a shot of vitamin K1 to get it into the blood quickly. However vitamin K2 can be administered with aspirin but not with Coumadin as it is a vitamin K2 antagonist.


http://www.drsinatra.com/supplement...-means-for-you/
Reply With Quote
  #95   ^
Old Fri, Feb-10-17, 12:42
Liz53's Avatar
Liz53 Liz53 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,088
 
Plan: Mostly Fung/IDM
Stats: 165/138.4/135 Female 63
BF:???/better/???
Progress: 89%
Location: Washington state
Default

Quote:
Liz is right in that age is a factor. But I don't think the score is weighed. I think that the score you get places you in a different percentile of risk based on your age. With my score I'm in the 90th percentile for a 53 year old male. Yikes! But if I was 70 my score would have put me in the 50th percentile. If I was 90, that score would be well below the 50th percentile. So I don't think that the actual calcium score changes with respect to age, but the score as a "risk factor" assessment is age dependent.


Thanks, Ken for following up on this. I had my scan done back in 2008, and was away from town when I wrote that, so could not consult my scan report. As I look at it today, it appears you are right that the score is absolute, only the percentile you fall into, and your risk of CVD associated with the calcium, varies with age.

I thought Ken had settled the issue pretty well so did not bother to update my erroneous statement when I got home (frankly never gave it another thought), but I'm doing that now.
Reply With Quote
  #96   ^
Old Fri, Mar-03-17, 09:33
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,026
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/172/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 94%
Location: NC
Default

Dr. Mike Eades - Important note on Calcification Volume vs Density. #CAC The Fat Emperor

http://www.thefatemperor.com/blog/2...-vs-density-cac
Reply With Quote
  #97   ^
Old Fri, Mar-03-17, 18:42
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,627
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

I wonder why people have so much calcium in their plaque. Could it be from dairy lobbying and doctors pushing calcium "to protect our bones"? Recommendations to take Tums or calcium without the necessary magnesium & phosphorus necessary to build bones would leave a lot of excess Ca.
Reply With Quote
  #98   ^
Old Sat, Mar-04-17, 08:35
khrussva's Avatar
khrussva khrussva is offline
Posts: 5,466
 
Plan: My own - < 30 net carbs
Stats: 440/200/210 Male 5' 11"
BF:Energy Unleashed
Progress: 104%
Location: Central Virginia - USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
Dr. Mike Eades - Important note on Calcification Volume vs Density. #CAC The Fat Emperor

http://www.thefatemperor.com/blog/2...-vs-density-cac

Thanks (as always) for the link, Janet. I don't know what I'd do without you and your timely posts.

I looked at my CAC results and it does have a volume score. Unfortunately, there is nothing about what 'slice' measure they had for this scan to use in the formula mentioned in your link. In the video they mentioned 2.5 or 3 as likely figures. Either way, I ended up on the wrong side of the equation. I am on the higher end on the volume vs. CAC score ration (3.2 at best). At this point all I can do is to trust in my diet and exercise regimen and hope that I am doing the right things. A year from now I will have the CAC done again. I'm hoping for improvement, but I'll take stability. Lord knows what I'll do if things are still moving swiftly in the wrong direction.
Reply With Quote
  #99   ^
Old Sat, Mar-04-17, 08:48
khrussva's Avatar
khrussva khrussva is offline
Posts: 5,466
 
Plan: My own - < 30 net carbs
Stats: 440/200/210 Male 5' 11"
BF:Energy Unleashed
Progress: 104%
Location: Central Virginia - USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deirdra
I wonder why people have so much calcium in their plaque. Could it be from dairy lobbying and doctors pushing calcium "to protect our bones"? Recommendations to take Tums or calcium without the necessary magnesium & phosphorus necessary to build bones would leave a lot of excess Ca.

If I understand things correctly, the calcium is not the root of the problem. In that video the indicate that dense calcium might actually be protective. The problem is the inflammation and plaque buildup in the first place. There may also be an issue with vitamin K2 deficiency as some of the best sources for K2 (free range eggs, meat & dairy from grass feed beef) have been lacking in the American diet for decades due to poor dietary advice and industrialized meat and dairy production. There are so many moving parts, so many changes in food over our lifetime. It is hard to know what the root cause is. Perhaps it is a little bit of many things. Recommendations to take calcium supplements might have been another little piece of bad advice.
Reply With Quote
  #100   ^
Old Sun, Jun-18-17, 12:48
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,026
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/172/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 94%
Location: NC
Default

Another good new talk by David Diamond on CVD studies and statins.
Starting about minute 50 he talks about how all the various lifestyle interventions impact blood clotting factors and thus reduce risk. Then a question from audience was what to do about a high CAC score....he does not recommend statins but Gouda cheese. According to him it has high levels of K2 and I assume would be made from milk from grass-fed cows as they are raised in Europe.
A tasty way to reduce calcium in arteries He does not agree that the calcium is in any way protective.
Another question was about donating platelets...no study but he "thinks" it may be beneficial to the donor (and always is to the receiver).

Whole talk is good, detailed studies but he's humorous, and especially good info towards end and answers to questions.
https://youtu.be/uc1XsO3mxX8

Last edited by JEY100 : Mon, Jun-19-17 at 08:10.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:42.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.