To my friends,
My boys bought me a $400 MRI (Calcium Score) a test to see if my arteries were candidates for plaque. Well, this 53yr. old who finished well at our Michigan Masters meet didn't do well on his test. The score goes from 1 to 100 and the closer you get to 100 the chances of plaque in the arteries goes up. I ended up with a 99 and won a visit to a cardiologist who ran a MRI / Stress test. The good news is the drug I'm on (Vitorin) lowered my bad cholesterol and triglicyrides by 1/2 213 to 113 and 113 to 58. Don't wait my friends, get the calcium score and get some piece of mind. I may die today, but heck, I know I tried and I tried to spread the word..
I'm still lifting, biking, and swimming. Running the good race?? :angel::angel::angel:
I've had a pretty wretched, heart-unhealthy diet for years and the lipid profile to show for it (total chol 309 at one point; ldl over 190). The good HDL was highish, from swimming and too much booze. When I tried to eat a better diet, the total and the LDL went down a bit, but the HDL went down more, leaving me with a worse ratio than ever, not to mention a sense of life misery that comes from having to shun the foods you've grown up loving. Like most Americans, I couldn't sustain this long term.
The one good think I have done for myself is consistent masters swimming over the last 23 years. Drinking probably helped the HDL stay high, but had other less beneficial effects, and so I quit this.
I have undergone two coronary calcium scans for magazine articles. One doctor said he had seen very rare scores as high as 10,000. I was convinced that given my high cholesterol, I would have at least this record beat--and possibly they'd find that instead of a beating heart inside my chest cavity, a quivering bowling ball made entirely out of calcium.
To my amazement, my score was zero. Five years later, in my early 50s, I had a repeat test out a UCLA Harbor. The doc figured that with age alone, I should show some modest increase in calcium. But again my score was zero.
These tests are controversial, but researchers in favor of them suggest that the age-graded scoring is not just a risk factor of atherosclerosis, it's actual proof for atherosclerosis (the hardening in hardening of the arteries is calcium).
The bottom line, from this layman's perspective, is that there are a myriad factors that go into whether person X with get heart disease. You can be doing everything right, and chances are you're heart will do well too--but not always. The flip side is also true. Guys like me, who eat 90 percent fatted corn syrup and preservatives, should have disease and many do. But there are also protective factors--swimming, I think is one of these, for swimming-susceptible types.
I get all kinds of psychological infirmities, but so far--and knock on wood--my wretched lifestyle excesses have not obviously ruined my heart. I don't expect this to last forever, but something's protective, even if what this factor(s) is(are) are not clearly delineated.
I've had a pretty wretched, heart-unhealthy diet for years and the lipid profile to show for it (total chol 309 at one point; ldl over 190). The good HDL was highish, from swimming and too much booze. When I tried to eat a better diet, the total and the LDL went down a bit, but the HDL went down more, leaving me with a worse ratio than ever, not to mention a sense of life misery that comes from having to shun the foods you've grown up loving. Like most Americans, I couldn't sustain this long term.
The one good think I have done for myself is consistent masters swimming over the last 23 years. Drinking probably helped the HDL stay high, but had other less beneficial effects, and so I quit this.
I have undergone two coronary calcium scans for magazine articles. One doctor said he had seen very rare scores as high as 10,000. I was convinced that given my high cholesterol, I would have at least this record beat--and possibly they'd find that instead of a beating heart inside my chest cavity, a quivering bowling ball made entirely out of calcium.
To my amazement, my score was zero. Five years later, in my early 50s, I had a repeat test out a UCLA Harbor. The doc figured that with age alone, I should show some modest increase in calcium. But again my score was zero.
These tests are controversial, but researchers in favor of them suggest that the age-graded scoring is not just a risk factor of atherosclerosis, it's actual proof for atherosclerosis (the hardening in hardening of the arteries is calcium).
The bottom line, from this layman's perspective, is that there are a myriad factors that go into whether person X with get heart disease. You can be doing everything right, and chances are you're heart will do well too--but not always. The flip side is also true. Guys like me, who eat 90 percent fatted corn syrup and preservatives, should have disease and many do. But there are also protective factors--swimming, I think is one of these, for swimming-susceptible types.
I get all kinds of psychological infirmities, but so far--and knock on wood--my wretched lifestyle excesses have not obviously ruined my heart. I don't expect this to last forever, but something's protective, even if what this factor(s) is(are) are not clearly delineated.
