Here’s a recent study:
“Reversing” may not be the right word. Calcification is part of the body’s response to arterial damage. It would seem to me that promoting healing to the point of allowing the calcium to be used elsewhere in the body would be a good thing. I know it’s a slow process, however.
Ravnskov and Diamond posit that damage to the arteries is constantly occurring, and is natural, problems arising only when the rate of damage exceeds the rate of repair. In the light of that assumption, it would make sense for calcification to be seen when the rate of damage greatly exceeds the rate of repair.
Given that a ketogenic diet helps reduce the rate of damage and increase the rate of repair, it would seem to make sense as a treatment, whether the arteries remain calcified or not. Certainly a well-formulated ketogenic diet is likely to promote good levels of vitamins D and K, which would help get the calcium back into the bone, where we want it.
This has always made sense to me.
I forgot one more example where LDL is meaningless: smoking.
I think with any intervention, there’s what we think (hope?) will happen and what actually happens. While I assume that reversing calcification is “good”, there’s always the possibility that it might not be. Perhaps the “calcification” becomes more likely to “break off” during reversal. I don’t think that’s true, but the body is strange. (Not to mention the classical way these things are represented is never correct.)
Anyway, I don’t think it’s a big deal, but I prefer to proceed with skepticism.
Good point, and in any case, the absolute calcification score is, apparently, not as relevant as the trend. Even if the score is fairly high, it’s not a problem if it remains stable or is dropping. Only an upward trend is truly a sign of risk, if I understand correctly.
You know, it’s too bad this is such a recent addition to the tests we can take. My score (last year) was zero, after 5.5 years low carb/keto/plus fasting. I find it difficult to believe, with all the damage I did to my body on SAD plus beer, that I had a zero score 5.5 years ago. If I did, what miraculous thing is in my body that is causing this?
I initially became interested and more curious about using a statin when I with exposed to the idea that the statin stabilizes plaque . I got to thinking that stable plaque , calcified plaque would be better than unstable plaque if one were infected with covid . I didn’t know that was something a statin did . I’ve always had the LDL in 150 , 170 , something like that but I didn’t want anything to do with the statin and now I remember learning something along the lines that drug companies did not publish studies that did not shed a favorable light on the drug in question. I also have been exposed to Dr. Diamond’s point but his point had escaped me, I don’t think it is new . If I take Dr. Diamonds point to heart I’m going to have to try and understand why so many guys who understand this stuff say things like the evidence for statins is so strong that it would be unethical not to prescribe them and when drug companies test something new that it would be unethical not to include a statin and the new drug against the statin alone . I don’t seem to even need to commit to memory or fully digest these numbers or test because the foot note in small print noting 3% taking the sugar pill had an event compared to 2% taking the Lipitor had no event is in fact published in the add and in small print . I still am having a difficult time coming to grips that such a large swath of the global population are being tricked and that such a large percentage medical community has been duped . I for one have better things to do than to get a 1% one up by taking whatever . One thing that could be argued however is that the stable plaque is not dangerous plaque. Another thing that comes to mind is that half or some high percentage of heart events are , what is it; folks with no calcium deposits or they just happen when the fat drifts to your brain or to your heart . What I am now confidant about is that sugar and even a lot of fruit is a culprit , that food companies put a lot of sugar in food because when they do so the bottom line is improved . I do want to know if the statin if this 1 in a 100 improvement number stands alone because as I said I’m having trouble believing that some many researchers who have been studying this stuff for so long are simply wrong and or deceitful . What other argument would a pro statin guy make ?
I for one very much enjoy(ed) sitting at an air-conditioned bar and having two , then sometimes 3 cold draft beers and making small talk , the big down side to it for me was that 2 or 3 beers was difficult to not follow up on with the Burger King drive by window . It is not unlike the school problem that the social part is the healthy part . I’m not planning to go back to the bar for my responsible draft beer but they are now all closed and we have an 8pm curfew. The good news for me is that I’m not missing it that much and hanging out with these 5 year old twins is just too much fun , I started smoking pot before excercise on occasion however ( for me personally there are pros and there are cons with this) and chatting on the phone which is a good thing , take it easy Bob and again thanks for your feedback . Do you have an opinion on the ultrasound neck thing , IMT ?
This is very current , July 2020 and a meta-analysis to boot .
I need to refrain from posting on this topic and to read the Health / Cholesterol post as
you initially suggested Micheal ( I suspect this study is using relative rather than absolute risk as well when referring to the 1/4 and 1/5 reductions in “events” , but my overall take away is that a. the side effects are difficult to track b. that the reporting of results is deceptive in both this recent and in past studies c. your time is better spent regarding risk by controlling sugar
Does your intuition tell you when Vitamin D comes from the sun it is a better Vitamin D
to whomever gave me some references and comments , I’ve now read the Kindle sample parts of most of the Doctors who have a problem with Statins or made an effort to set the story straight . I also now understand the difference between absolute and relative risk , I’m gonna read a bit more on it but Ive learned enough not to mention by removing sugar from the program I’ve got a way to manage things for the first time . These people are "no good " because they use the relative risk to give you the good side and the absolute risk to give you the down side and thank you again for your help