Carbonfiberboy 

Yes. I had both a thallium stress test: https://www.healthline.com/health/thallium-stress-test
and a Cardiac CT Scan: https://oklahomaheart.com/content/st...t#.W1UlnNVKiUk

Neither of these is invasive or, as long as you're not allergic to the dye, risky. The thallium test is basically about perfusion. Mine was normal. The CT scan showed a high calcium score and, as I said above, 50% LAD blockage with possibly greater blockage of minor arteries. What a single test doesn't tell us is the rate of plaque deposition in our coronary arteries, which can be as high as 3% of arterial cross section per year. Statins have been observed to reduce that rate to zero even in high-risk patients.

Explanation of calcium scoring is here: https://www.umms.org/ummc/health-ser...alcium-scoring
My total was 374, which puts me in the 64th percentile for men my age.

Since I had a symptom of unknown origin, my insurance paid for most of this. Since you are asymptomatic, I don't think the thallium test would be informative and is probably expensive, judging by the staffing, equipment, and how long it took. The CT scan was quick and probably not all that costly. Ask your doctor or clinic office about costs.

Dudelsack 

profjmb

Thanks!!!

Carbonfiberboy 

I should probably mention that I've been on a mostly Mediterranean diet for 45 years. No meat, fats mostly olive, nuts, and some dairy. I've always been active though I've been running my small business, which has been quite stressful at times. Plus genetics. Anyway, I was shocked to say the least, which is the reason I'm sort of on about it.

pdlamb

There are several diagnostics you can do. This is probably where you need to be exercising your skepticism, IMHO; you run a risk of false positives and false negatives with each. For example, I missed my appointment to get a calcium score because I was in the hospital coming out of the medically-induced coma after my MI. My cardiologist told me that the calcium score, if I'd had it a week earlier, would have come back negative because of how my artery was blocked.

Well, that saved me $100. </sarcasm>

Former president W got a stent a few years back because an angiogram showed a 30% blockage. Multiple cardiologists (including a couple of mine) have said, well, everybody over 65 has a 30% blockage, and most of them don't need any treatment, blockages grow and shrink when they're that size. But he was a retired president, so he got treated anyway. Good or bad?

I can sympathize with your desire to avoid treatment. I was in the same boat. I've come to see this as a gambling game you're in (no choice there). The doctors can tell you the odds, but nobody else can play it for you. You're dealt a hand. How do you play it? Do you go with the likely odds? 70% of people can take a given problem without problems, but there's only about five statins on the market, so you do the math: 3 out of every 10 people can't take the statin your doctor wants to put you on, and 24 out of 10,000 people can't take any of the marketed statins. (And they all post on internet forums.) I could have cut my risk of a cardiovascular event by 2/3 if I'd done what I did after my MI before the event. What are you going to do Are you going to bet your life you will get lucky?

Carbonfiberboy 

Or you can just go by the statistics. Your doctor probably has the statistical calculation on his or her phone. Docs run the answers to their questions and tell you the statistically based recommendation for statin or not, along with dosage. I rather assume this has already happened.

I just ran my numbers pre and post statin. The statin cut my 10-year risk from 15.7 to 13.7 according to the calculator. The statin cut my total cholesterol by 33%, cut my LDL more than in half, but only very slightly raised my HDL. LDL does not figure in the calculation for some reason. I think the message is "old guys gonna die."

Have a go yourselves. Get your death date right here : ACC/AHA ASCVD Risk Calculator

CliffordK

Interesting calculator.

There are others online too.

I have to question if the calculators properly track fitness.

The OP mentioned riding about 4000 miles a year. There are riders that ride more, but that certainly is a good amount of riding. 190 to 205 lbs sounds a bit on the heavy side, but he also mentioned generally strong, so it is hard to know how much of that is muscle vs fat.

And a resting HR in the low 50's may indicate both good genetics as well as having had a good long-term exercise program.

There have been studies about the protective nature of exercise and cycling, and many of us go way over the top for miles or hours per year.

According to Consumer Reports, some of the calculators overstated the risks of various "events".

https://www.consumerreports.org/heal...tors-reliable/

And, these are all just risk factors... the only important number is oneself.. a binary event... will it happen to me, YES or NO? And, that is one of the hardest things to really know.

bruce19

I know this isn't the focus of this thread but BP was mentioned. My BP was high (145/90) and my MD put me on Correg (sp?). It damn near killed me. I won't get into the specifics but it was horrible. I have a cyclist friend who is a Naturopathic Doctor. She suggested 100% beet juice. I was skeptical but desperate. I took her advice and my BP for the past 2 years has been around 130/80. And, I read that pro cyclists take beet juice as a performance enhancer.

rubiksoval

Indeed.

I also take daily beet root powder for blood pressure. Seems to consistently keep it about 10 points lower.

And I take a concentrated dose before races.

CliffordK

I've made several recent changes in my life, but with stopping drinking coffee, and increasing my cycling, my diastolic and systolic pressures have dropped by about 10mm Hg each. And my resting HR has also dropped by about 10 BPM.

Either exercise helps... or I'm dying.