America: The world's diet laboratory

Wow... I stood and cheered:

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/

This post not CC'd by email
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:26:53 -0000, dsolo <dalesolomonson@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Wow... I stood and cheered:
>
>http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/

G'day G'day,

Thanks for an URL with lots of thought provoking statements.

Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:26:53 -0000, dsolo
<dalesolomonson@gmail.com> wrote:

>Wow... I stood and cheered:
>
>http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/

Well, I stayed seated but did applaud. I'm glad you gave the
link; Jackie and I were starting to sound like disciples:-)

Since diagnosis I've read umpteen doctors on the web. I've
re-read very few. I've had the heartscan blog on my "home"
page for Firefox since I first saw it. For heart/lipids
commmon sense practical advice Dr Davis has to be top of my
list at the moment.


Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com
Psyllium, Fibre, Muesli and Nuts

dsolo <dalesolomonson@gmail.com> wrote in part:

>Wow... I stood and cheered:
>
>http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/

I've found some things (in the free parts) to be of interest, but I have
reservations about the general approach. That approach is to undergo CT
scans repeatedly to judge changes in calcification of the coronary arteries.
There's a downside to that, both in radiation exposure and cost. And no one
as yet has shown that the current extent of calcification corresponds to the
current risk of plaque rupture and thus heart attack or stroke.

I've undergone (one) CT-scan of coronary arteries. And I can't say that it
added a lot of information to my personal set of risk factors. I think if
you consider abdominal fat (maybe best measured by waist-to-hip ratio at
present), blood pressure, bg control, family and personal history, and lipid
pattern, you won't gain much from a scan, and embarking on a series of scans
to measure progress in controlling coronary calcium just can't be justified.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

friend Jim Chinnis wrote:
> convicted friend dsolo <dalesolomonson@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>
> >Wow... I stood and cheered:
> >
> >http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/
>
> I've found some things (in the free parts) to be of interest, but I have
> reservations about the general approach. That approach is to undergo CT
> scans repeatedly to judge changes in calcification of the coronary arteries.
> There's a downside to that, both in radiation exposure and cost. And no one
> as yet has shown that the current extent of calcification corresponds to the
> current risk of plaque rupture and thus heart attack or stroke.
>
> I've undergone (one) CT-scan of coronary arteries. And I can't say that it
> added a lot of information to my personal set of risk factors. I think if
> you consider abdominal fat (maybe best measured by waist-to-hip ratio at
> present), blood pressure, bg control, family and personal history, and lipid
> pattern, you won't gain much from a scan, and embarking on a series of scans
> to measure progress in controlling coronary calcium just can't be justified.

Would concur with what you have written and add that the 2PD-OMER
Approach invariably succeeds where diet fail in helping folks lose the
harmful VAT.

If the latter were not true, we would have given out the million-
dollar guarantee by now...

.... many months later, the guarantee still stands:

http://TruthRUS.org/Guarantee

Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:

http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/PressRelease

Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords.

Jim Chinnis wrote:
> dsolo <dalesolomonson@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>
>> Wow... I stood and cheered:
>>
>> http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/
>
> I've found some things (in the free parts) to be of interest, but I have
> reservations about the general approach. That approach is to undergo CT
> scans repeatedly to judge changes in calcification of the coronary arteries.
> There's a downside to that, both in radiation exposure and cost. And no one
> as yet has shown that the current extent of calcification corresponds to the
> current risk of plaque rupture and thus heart attack or stroke.

While plaque buildup isn't a guarantee of a heart attack, you'd be hard
put to have an infraction without plaque.


> I've undergone (one) CT-scan of coronary arteries. And I can't say that it
> added a lot of information to my personal set of risk factors. I think if
> you consider abdominal fat (maybe best measured by waist-to-hip ratio at
> present), blood pressure, bg control, family and personal history, and lipid
> pattern, you won't gain much from a scan, and embarking on a series of scans
> to measure progress in controlling coronary calcium just can't be justified.

I disagree. A series of scans would really only be necessary if there
is plaque and you want to monitor your progress; otherwise, if you
"pass", you know not to worry about it.

You're talking about measuring the risk factors rather than measuring
the thing itself - the actual blockages in the coronary arteries. The
risk factors work for measuring risk across populations, but don't give
you a picture of how *you* are doing.

My lipid panels never really indicated anything; I've never had a doctor
even suggest meds or dietary changes wrt cholesterol prior to the heart
attack. I had sporadic high bp, but since I could get low measurements
when relaxed, it was considered good enough without meds. No one in my
family ever had a heart attack, not even the other diabetics. My only
real high risk factor was being diabetes and a less than optimal
waist-to-hip ratio, but these are hardly big worries with no family
history of heart disease. If I ever thought about my heart risk, it was
way off in the future, cause women don't have heart attacks this young.
So I didn't really have any way of knowing until the chest pain began.

When I got home from the hospital and sobered up enough to think about
it, my very first question was to wonder what one can do to reduce
artery blockages. I haven't seen anyone else address this, let alone do
so successfully.

Unfortunately, since I've had a bypass, it's unlikely I could get good
information from a heart scan. But I appreciate that his patients have
them and he therefore has specific clinical experience on what works to
correct various problems. He knows specific stuff like what works for
correcting a high Lp(a) and what reduction of plaque you get for doing
that, etc.

If I'd had a heart scan a year or more ago, and then followed up with
lipoprotein testing and appropriate treatment, I'd likely have avoided
my heart attack entirely.

On the other hand, Davis recommends the first scan for women at age 50,
so he'd have missed me anyway.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Jackie Patti <jpatti@ccil.org> wrote in part:

>Jim Chinnis wrote:
>> dsolo <dalesolomonson@gmail.com> wrote in part:
>>
>>> Wow... I stood and cheered:
>>>
>>> http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/
>>
>> I've found some things (in the free parts) to be of interest, but I have
>> reservations about the general approach. That approach is to undergo CT
>> scans repeatedly to judge changes in calcification of the coronary arteries.
>> There's a downside to that, both in radiation exposure and cost. And no one
>> as yet has shown that the current extent of calcification corresponds to the
>> current risk of plaque rupture and thus heart attack or stroke.
>
>While plaque buildup isn't a guarantee of a heart attack, you'd be hard
>put to have an infraction without plaque.

But the CT-scan can't see plaque. It only sees calcification.

>> I've undergone (one) CT-scan of coronary arteries. And I can't say that it
>> added a lot of information to my personal set of risk factors. I think if
>> you consider abdominal fat (maybe best measured by waist-to-hip ratio at
>> present), blood pressure, bg control, family and personal history, and lipid
>> pattern, you won't gain much from a scan, and embarking on a series of scans
>> to measure progress in controlling coronary calcium just can't be justified.
>
>I disagree. A series of scans would really only be necessary if there
>is plaque and you want to monitor your progress; otherwise, if you
>"pass", you know not to worry about it.

That's true, at least as far as calcification goes. It's possible to have
dangerous unstable plaque without significant calcification, though.

>You're talking about measuring the risk factors rather than measuring
>the thing itself - the actual blockages in the coronary arteries. The
>risk factors work for measuring risk across populations, but don't give
>you a picture of how *you* are doing.

If you could do easy, non-invasive measures of the plaque itself,
particularly the non-calcified unstable plaque that is subject to rupture,
there would be no need to use risk factors. But we can't currently measure
the plaque easily or non-invasively. So we have to rely on risk factors.
Coronary artery calcium score is just a (not that well studied) risk factor.

>My lipid panels never really indicated anything; I've never had a doctor
>even suggest meds or dietary changes wrt cholesterol prior to the heart
>attack. I had sporadic high bp, but since I could get low measurements
>when relaxed, it was considered good enough without meds. No one in my
>family ever had a heart attack, not even the other diabetics. My only
>real high risk factor was being diabetes and a less than optimal
>waist-to-hip ratio, but these are hardly big worries with no family
>history of heart disease. If I ever thought about my heart risk, it was
>way off in the future, cause women don't have heart attacks this young.

I disagree that WHR and diabetes aren't major concerns even in the absense
of bad lipids or family history. That's why I listed them up front:
"abdominal fat ..., blood pressure, bg control, family and personal history,
and lipid pattern." It looks like you failed the first and third and maybe
the second as well.

> So I didn't really have any way of knowing until the chest pain began.
>
>When I got home from the hospital and sobered up enough to think about
>it, my very first question was to wonder what one can do to reduce
>artery blockages. I haven't seen anyone else address this, let alone do
>so successfully.
>
>Unfortunately, since I've had a bypass, it's unlikely I could get good
>information from a heart scan. But I appreciate that his patients have
>them and he therefore has specific clinical experience on what works to
>correct various problems. He knows specific stuff like what works for
>correcting a high Lp(a) and what reduction of plaque you get for doing
>that, etc.
>
>If I'd had a heart scan a year or more ago, and then followed up with
>lipoprotein testing and appropriate treatment, I'd likely have avoided
>my heart attack entirely.

Possibly. But I think the CT-based heart scan result could have been
predicted by your risk factors.

>On the other hand, Davis recommends the first scan for women at age 50,
>so he'd have missed me anyway.

There ya go...
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

Hi Jim:

>>http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/
>
>
> I've found some things (in the free parts) to be of interest, but I have
> reservations about the general approach. That approach is to undergo CT
> scans repeatedly to judge changes in calcification of the coronary arteries.
> There's a downside to that, both in radiation exposure and cost. And no one
> as yet has shown that the current extent of calcification corresponds to the
> current risk of plaque rupture and thus heart attack or stroke.
>
> I've undergone (one) CT-scan of coronary arteries. And I can't say that it
> added a lot of information to my personal set of risk factors. I think if
> you consider abdominal fat (maybe best measured by waist-to-hip ratio at
> present), blood pressure, bg control, family and personal history, and lipid
> pattern, you won't gain much from a scan, and embarking on a series of scans
> to measure progress in controlling coronary calcium just can't be justified.

At first glance at the following references, I would say that the type 2
diabetic should be considered a special attention case for heart
scanning. Based on past threads you may well not fit this profile. I
have been to cardiologist about 5 times, but nothing significant turned
up. Diabetics in my family have a history of heart disease. Four have
died by this route.

"RESULTS— Patients with diabetes had a significant increase in the
prevalence of CAC scores >=400 (25.9%) compared with the randomly
selected (7.2%) and matched (14.4%) nondiabetic control groups. Scores
in this range have been reported to be highly predictive for abnormal
stress myocardial perfusion tomography and subsequent coronary events.

CONCLUSIONS— Our results, therefore, indicate a substantial prevalence
of significant coronary artery disease in an asymptomatic diabetic
patient population compared with non-diabetic control subjects. They
also suggest that EBCT may be a useful approach for selecting a group of
diabetic subjects who would benefit most from additional evaluation for
subclinical coronary artery disease." Increased Prevalence of
Significant Coronary Artery Calcification in Patients With Diabetes -
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi.../full/24/2/335


"The increased atherosclerosis seen in patients with diabetes is
reflected in increased coronary artery calcium (CAC) measured by
electron beam tomography (5,6). CAC is a measure of total coronary
atherosclerotic burden that has been validated by autopsy and coronary
angiography (7,8). In large studies, CAC has been found to be a
significant predictor of cardiovascular events in symptomatic and
asymptomatic subjects (9,10). In subjects with type 1 diabetes, CAC is
an independent correlate of myocardial infarction and obstructive
coronary artery disease (11). The amount of CAC has also been shown to
correlate well with the amount of atheromatous plaque in patients with
type 2 diabetes (12)." Relationship of Traditional and Nontraditional
Cardiovascular Risk Factors to Coronary Artery Calcium in Type 2
Diabetes - http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org.../full/56/3/849

Frank

Jefferson <fwroy@adelphia.netexopheno> wrote in part:

>Hi Jim:
>
>>>http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>> I've found some things (in the free parts) to be of interest, but I have
>> reservations about the general approach. That approach is to undergo CT
>> scans repeatedly to judge changes in calcification of the coronary arteries.
>> There's a downside to that, both in radiation exposure and cost. And no one
>> as yet has shown that the current extent of calcification corresponds to the
>> current risk of plaque rupture and thus heart attack or stroke.
>>
>> I've undergone (one) CT-scan of coronary arteries. And I can't say that it
>> added a lot of information to my personal set of risk factors. I think if
>> you consider abdominal fat (maybe best measured by waist-to-hip ratio at
>> present), blood pressure, bg control, family and personal history, and lipid
>> pattern, you won't gain much from a scan, and embarking on a series of scans
>> to measure progress in controlling coronary calcium just can't be justified.
>
>At first glance at the following references, I would say that the type 2
>diabetic should be considered a special attention case for heart
>scanning. Based on past threads you may well not fit this profile. I
>have been to cardiologist about 5 times, but nothing significant turned
>up. Diabetics in my family have a history of heart disease. Four have
>died by this route.
>
>"RESULTS— Patients with diabetes had a significant increase in the
>prevalence of CAC scores >=400 (25.9%) compared with the randomly
>selected (7.2%) and matched (14.4%) nondiabetic control groups. Scores
>in this range have been reported to be highly predictive for abnormal
>stress myocardial perfusion tomography and subsequent coronary events.
>
>CONCLUSIONS— Our results, therefore, indicate a substantial prevalence
>of significant coronary artery disease in an asymptomatic diabetic
>patient population compared with non-diabetic control subjects. They
>also suggest that EBCT may be a useful approach for selecting a group of
>diabetic subjects who would benefit most from additional evaluation for
>subclinical coronary artery disease." Increased Prevalence of
>Significant Coronary Artery Calcification in Patients With Diabetes -
>http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi.../full/24/2/335
>
>
>"The increased atherosclerosis seen in patients with diabetes is
>reflected in increased coronary artery calcium (CAC) measured by
>electron beam tomography (5,6). CAC is a measure of total coronary
>atherosclerotic burden that has been validated by autopsy and coronary
>angiography (7,8). In large studies, CAC has been found to be a
>significant predictor of cardiovascular events in symptomatic and
>asymptomatic subjects (9,10). In subjects with type 1 diabetes, CAC is
>an independent correlate of myocardial infarction and obstructive
>coronary artery disease (11). The amount of CAC has also been shown to
>correlate well with the amount of atheromatous plaque in patients with
>type 2 diabetes (12)." Relationship of Traditional and Nontraditional
>Cardiovascular Risk Factors to Coronary Artery Calcium in Type 2
>Diabetes - http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org.../full/56/3/849
>
>Frank

Hi Frank. I always enjoy your posts.

You wrote, " I would say that the type 2 diabetic should be considered a
special attention case for heart scanning." I think I disagree. The reason
for doing any test is to learn something. In an earlier post of mine in this
thread, I wrote: " I think if you consider abdominal fat (maybe best
measured by waist-to-hip ratio at present), blood pressure, bg control,
family and personal history, and lipid pattern, you won't gain much from a
scan..." I put those risk factors in rough order of importance. Maybe bg
control belongs ahead of bp.

Anyway, the vast majority of type 2 diabetics are going to flunk the first
three (main) predictors of heart disease, and maybe most will flunk all of
them. It's true that not all will die from heart disease or have a heart
attack or stroke, but most will.

So, if you are a type-2 diabetic, what would a CAC measurement do for you?
Your probability of a cardiovascular outcome is very high. A high CAC, say
above 200, is likely. It's possible that you'd get a score of 50 or even
zero, but would that allow you to strike heart disease from your list of
things to worry about? I don't think so. A heart attack or stroke doesn't
result from high calcium in the arteries. It has to do with tendencies to
clot, with inflammation in the arteries, with non-calcified lipid deposits
in the artery wall, with the health of the endothelium, with blood pressure,
etc.

You're very capable with science and technology. The proper way to evaluate
the worth of doing a test is by calculating the change in the expected value
of the outcome if the test is performed. (In statistics, this has the
somewhat absurd descriptor of "preposterior analysis.") This becomes
complex, but the essential idea is that you weight the possible outcomes of
the test and the actions and outcomes that then unfold according to how
likely those outcomes are. For most type-2 DMers, and I suspect for Jackie,
the bad WHR, the bad bg control (compared to non-diabetics), and the
elevated bp are already enough to make the probability distribution for CAC
slide strongly to the right.

So the math would include a rather heavy weight on high CACs.

Now, what would a t2 DM *do* given the likely result? Would it push him to
go to a normal WHR, normal bg control, and normal bp? Maybe put a small
probability on that outcome.

And what would happen given the less likely result of a low reading, say
below 200? Would that mean he would forget about losing weight, about
exercising, about controlling bg and bp? Put a small probability on that,
too.

So the large CAC and low CAC outcomes maybe don't make much difference in
patient behavior and therefore outcome.

The CAC isn't a direct cause of a heart attack. It's just another measure of
risk. And that risk is already pretty well measured by abdominal fat, blood
pressure, bg control, family and personal history, and lipid
pattern.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

"dsolo" <dalesolomonson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193113613.398593.202350@q5g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
> Wow... I stood and cheered:
>
> http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/
>


Hi dsolo,
Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(19):2080-2085

On their website as fast response communication , not yet in Pubmed







I know the usual responses

This is to keep you sharp

Why do you do it ?

Is there conflicting evidence for your hypothesis ?









Conclusions: Our data demonstrate that a higher intake of whole grain
breakfast cereals is associated with a lower risk of hearth failure









Breakfast Cereals and Risk of Heart Failure in the Physicians' Health Study
I

Luc Djousse´, MD, MPH, DSc; J. Michael Gaziano, MD, MPH



Background:

Heart failure (HF) is the leading cause of hospitalization among the
elderly population in the United States. Consumption of grain products and
dietary fiber has been shown to reduce the risk of hypertension and
myocardial infarction. However, it is not known whether a higher
consumption of breakfast cereals is associated with risk of HF.



Methods:

This study evaluated prospectively the association between breakfast cereal
intake and incident HF among 21,376 participants of the Physicians' Health
Study I. Cereal consumption was estimated using a semiquantitative food
frequency questionnaire. Incident HF was ascertained through annual
follow-up questionnaires and validated using Framingham criteria. We used
Cox regression models to estimate adjusted relative risk of HF across
categories of cereal intake.



Results:

During an average follow-up of 19.6 years, 1018 incident cases of HF
occurred. For average weekly cereal consumption of 0 servings, 1 or fewer,
2 to 6, and 7 or more, hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for HF
were 1 (reference), 0.92 (0.78-1.09), 0.79 (0.67-0.93), and 0.71
(0.60-0.85), respectively (P<0.001 for trend), adjusting for age, smoking,
alcohol consumption, vegetable consumption, use of multivitamins, exercise,
and history of atrial fibrillation, valvular heart disease, and left
ventricular hypertrophy. However, the association was limited to the intake
of whole grain cereals (P<0.001 for trend) but not refined cereals (P=.70
for trend).



Conclusions:

Our data demonstrate that a higher intake of whole grain breakfast cereals
is associated with a lower risk of HF. Additional studies are warranted to
confirm these findings and determine specific nutrients that are
responsible for such a protection. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(19):2080-2085



Gys

On Oct 22, 9:26 pm, dsolo <dalesolomon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow... I stood and cheered:
>
> http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/

Thanks for posting this link!

Best regards,
Michelle C., T2
diet & exercise

Hi Jim:

>> http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/

>
> I've found some things (in the free parts) to be of interest, but I have
> reservations about the general approach. That approach is to undergo CT
> scans repeatedly to judge changes in calcification of the coronary
arteries.
> There's a downside to that, both in radiation exposure and cost. And
no one
> as yet has shown that the current extent of calcification corresponds
to the
> current risk of plaque rupture and thus heart attack or stroke.
>
> I've undergone (one) CT-scan of coronary arteries. And I can't say
that it
> added a lot of information to my personal set of risk factors. I think if
> you consider abdominal fat (maybe best measured by waist-to-hip ratio at
> present), blood pressure, bg control, family and personal history,
and lipid
> pattern, you won't gain much from a scan, and embarking on a series
of scans
> to measure progress in controlling coronary calcium just can't be
justified.


At first glance at the following references, I would say that the type 2
diabetic should be considered a special attention case for heart
scanning. Based on past threads you may well not fit this profile. You
are not quite the canary in the coal mine. I have been to
cardiologist about 5 times, but nothing significant turned up.
Diabetics in my family have a history of heart disease. Four have died
by this route.

"RESULTS— Patients with diabetes had a significant increase in the
prevalence of CAC scores >=400 (25.9%) compared with the randomly
selected (7.2%) and matched (14.4%) nondiabetic control groups. Scores
in this range have been reported to be highly predictive for abnormal
stress myocardial perfusion tomography and subsequent coronary events.

CONCLUSIONS— Our results, therefore, indicate a substantial prevalence
of significant coronary artery disease in an asymptomatic diabetic
patient population compared with non-diabetic control subjects. They
also suggest that EBCT may be a useful approach for selecting a group of
diabetic subjects who would benefit most from additional evaluation for
subclinical coronary artery disease." Increased Prevalence of
Significant Coronary Artery Calcification in Patients With Diabetes -
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi.../full/24/2/335

Jefferson <fwroy@adelphia.netexopheno> wrote in part:

>Hi Jim:
>
> >> http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/
>
> >
> > I've found some things (in the free parts) to be of interest, but I have
> > reservations about the general approach. That approach is to undergo CT
> > scans repeatedly to judge changes in calcification of the coronary
>arteries.
> > There's a downside to that, both in radiation exposure and cost. And
>no one
> > as yet has shown that the current extent of calcification corresponds
>to the
> > current risk of plaque rupture and thus heart attack or stroke.
> >
> > I've undergone (one) CT-scan of coronary arteries. And I can't say
>that it
> > added a lot of information to my personal set of risk factors. I think if
> > you consider abdominal fat (maybe best measured by waist-to-hip ratio at
> > present), blood pressure, bg control, family and personal history,
>and lipid
> > pattern, you won't gain much from a scan, and embarking on a series
>of scans
> > to measure progress in controlling coronary calcium just can't be
>justified.
>
>
>At first glance at the following references, I would say that the type 2
>diabetic should be considered a special attention case for heart
>scanning. Based on past threads you may well not fit this profile. You
>are not quite the canary in the coal mine. I have been to
>cardiologist about 5 times, but nothing significant turned up.
>Diabetics in my family have a history of heart disease. Four have died
>by this route.
>
>"RESULTS— Patients with diabetes had a significant increase in the
>prevalence of CAC scores >=400 (25.9%) compared with the randomly
>selected (7.2%) and matched (14.4%) nondiabetic control groups. Scores
>in this range have been reported to be highly predictive for abnormal
>stress myocardial perfusion tomography and subsequent coronary events.
>
>CONCLUSIONS— Our results, therefore, indicate a substantial prevalence
>of significant coronary artery disease in an asymptomatic diabetic
>patient population compared with non-diabetic control subjects. They
>also suggest that EBCT may be a useful approach for selecting a group of
>diabetic subjects who would benefit most from additional evaluation for
>subclinical coronary artery disease." Increased Prevalence of
>Significant Coronary Artery Calcification in Patients With Diabetes -
>http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi.../full/24/2/335

The issue that I addressed was the *repeated* CT scans suggested by the
author of the blog praised in the first post of this thread. I mentioned the
problem of radiation dose.

I argued that the CACscore probably doesn't provide much info beyond what
consideration of a fairly complete set of known (non-invasive) risk factors
will provide. You have pointed out that there may be extra benefit from such
a scan in a type-2 diabetic, and that is certainly possible.

While here, I'll add that a major reason for not doing repeated coronary
artery CT-scans on heart patients is that there is a very large variability
when scans are repeated--even on the same day. This is partly due to the
positioning of the patient in the machine. What that means for researchers
is just that they need more subjects in a study because of the extra error
source. What it means to a single patient who wants to "track his plaque" is
that he will not really be able to determine the % changes in plaque due to
particular treatments--the error is just too large.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:38:08 GMT, Jim Chinnis
<jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:

>While here, I'll add that a major reason for not doing repeated coronary
>artery CT-scans on heart patients is that there is a very large variability
>when scans are repeated--even on the same day. This is partly due to the
>positioning of the patient in the machine. What that means for researchers
>is just that they need more subjects in a study because of the extra error
>source. What it means to a single patient who wants to "track his plaque" is
>that he will not really be able to determine the % changes in plaque due to
>particular treatments--the error is just too large.

I can't argue with you, it's out of my area of expertise.
However, if you browse through the relevant posts on that
blog I think you'll find Dr Davis has some quite accurate
methods for his practical applications rather than for
research.

Beyond that I'll stay out of the debate on "tracking your
plaque".

I read him for the practical advice on other aspects,
particularly diet, and the supporting links and papers he
provides for his views. One point is loud and clear - if I
lived where you do and not here on 28 degrees South, I would
be taking vitamin D supplements.


Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com
Psyllium, Fibre, Muesli and Nuts

Alan S <loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> wrote in part:

>On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:38:08 GMT, Jim Chinnis
><jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>>While here, I'll add that a major reason for not doing repeated coronary
>>artery CT-scans on heart patients is that there is a very large variability
>>when scans are repeated--even on the same day. This is partly due to the
>>positioning of the patient in the machine. What that means for researchers
>>is just that they need more subjects in a study because of the extra error
>>source. What it means to a single patient who wants to "track his plaque" is
>>that he will not really be able to determine the % changes in plaque due to
>>particular treatments--the error is just too large.
>
>I can't argue with you, it's out of my area of expertise.
>However, if you browse through the relevant posts on that
>blog I think you'll find Dr Davis has some quite accurate
>methods for his practical applications rather than for
>research.
>
>Beyond that I'll stay out of the debate on "tracking your
>plaque".
>
>I read him for the practical advice on other aspects,
>particularly diet, and the supporting links and papers he
>provides for his views. One point is loud and clear - if I
>lived where you do and not here on 28 degrees South, I would
>be taking vitamin D supplements.

I *do* take vitamin d supplements and have done so for over a year now.

I think Dr. Davis is very informative. I like to read his blog. I agree with
what he writes and he writes very well.

I just don't agree that tracking your plaque with CT scans is a good idea.
That may change with the advent of lower dose and more accurate scans, but
not yet.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

Why Do People Diet?
People diet for many reasons. Some are at an unhealthy weight and need
to pay closer attention to their eating and exercise habits. Some play
sports and want to be in top physical condition. Others may think they
would look and feel better if they lost a few pounds.
http://loose-weight-for-a-healthy-life.blogspot.com/

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:11:25 -0000, palmerdavid26@googlemail.com
wrote:

>Why Do People Diet?
>People diet for many reasons. Some are at an unhealthy weight and need
>to pay closer attention to their eating and exercise habits. Some play
>sports and want to be in top physical condition. Others may think they
>would look and feel better if they lost a few pounds. Then there are
>the fools who read our website.
>http://don't-loose-weight-we-scam-you-for-our-healthy-life-off-your-money.blogspot.com/
>
>