Dave Feldman update on LMHR data

(Michael) #1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKOVv4KkszQ - good news for us hyper-responders


Just watched his presentation on YT Low Carb Conferences. Good news!


Such a human talk.

(Joey) #4

Thank you for providing this link. Am beyond thrilled!

As an early financial supporter of Feldman’s efforts (and fellow LMHR), I can’t imagine a finer payoff.

Now can’t wait to read the final study.

Science. :test_tube:

(Bob M) #5

This will make most doctors freak out:

(Bob M) #6

By the way, I could only listen to part of this. I stopped about the time he said there was a 5th possibility, of zero scores for scans. I had to leave at that time.

Anyone want to let me know what happened after that? I won’t have time to listen again until this coming weekend.

(BuckRimfire) #7

Or Nature.

At least, I can dream. They certainly DESERVE to be in a very high-profile journal.

(BuckRimfire) #8

My CAC Agaston score was 27 after two years on keto and 41 after 2 more years. Anyone have a guess at what that might equal on their 0-45 scale?

(Joey) #9

Synonyms? :wink:

(Joey) #10

Agatston score (via CAC imaging) only captures hard calcified plaque (i.e., scabbed over damage) - not the soft plaque that’s dangerous (which can dislodge and circulate causing significant risk).

If you have the details of your scans, consider calculating the density of the calcified plaque detected (= mass divided by volume) and plot a trend line over the four years of scans.

There is evidence that increasing density is far more indicative of a trend toward reduced risk than an otherwise slight increase levels of hard plaque.

As such, it’s possible that your increase (which is very slight) but may actually be a sign of an improving risk profile.

As for Feldman’s scale, I have no clue.

(Joey) #11

@BuckRimfire ADDENDUM: When I cite plaque density and say “there’s evidence” here’s what I’m referring to…

CalcDensityPlaque-Criqui-2014.pdf (323.7 KB)
CalcDensityPlaque-Criqui-2017.pdf (508.4 KB)
CalcDensityPlaque-Criqui-2021.pdf (110.7 KB)

(BuckRimfire) #12

Why is this on YouTube just last week when the talk was in mid-February? Was there some news detail that I missed?

(Michael) #13

Good question. I do not know why, but they have since released another video from then. Perhaps they are releasing much later as an incentive to attend or a way to try and generate income for viewing earlier … just a thought, not sure.

(Bob M) #14

I think it’s they want people to attend or pay for seeing the videos for a while. It can’t be cheap to put on one of these.

(Denise) #15

Hey Joey,

If I’m understanding correctly, a CAC scan wouldn’t be worth much to me. On FB in the LMHR group Dave started, one guy told me that my Carotoid Artery scan should be good enough, if it’s clear than I’m probably good to go. I can’t get a CAC scan in my area, so if this is true what he says, it would probably just not be worth the trouble.

(Bob M) #16

Carotid Artery might be good enough. It’s not as “extensive” in terms of the area being covered, but it’s probably a good indicator of atherosclerosis.

(Denise) #17

Yes, and there were no flags on it. Do you know what a CMIT is? Someone mentioned that on the lmhr, fb page of Feldman’s.

(Bacon enough and time) #18

CIMT = coronary intima media thickness. The intima is the inner lining of the artery.

(Denise) #19

I just read that, and my thought was, why the heck can’t they measure that during the Carotid Artery Ultra Sound!! All this testing, money money money, it’s all about the money :hot_face: