Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

2025-11-0814:59600488myticker.com

by Jared Hecht (blog, linkedin, twitter)

by Jared Hecht (blog, linkedin, twitter)

ToC

  • How to not die of heart disease
  • The Current State of Affairs
  • How to get this from your doctor
  • What should you do with your test results?
  • You should be scared of heart disease. Heart disease is the leading cause of death globally, and it’s not just an old people problem. 25% of heart attacks occur in people under the age of 55.
  • The first sign of heart disease for many people is they drop dead of a heart attack. It’s a quiet disease that develops silently over many decades and then suddenly appears when it kills you.
  • You don’t have to die of heart disease if you don’t want to.
    • The way really rich people avoid dying of heart disease is they go to very expensive high-end concierge doctors who focus on preventative medicine (i.e. practitioners who help you prevent getting sick in the first place).
    • But the things they do to avoid heart disease are simple and accessible to everyone. Instead of paying tens of thousands of dollars a year to see these expensive concierge doctors, you can actually do all the most important tests yourself for less than $300, and most medications you’d need should be covered by insurance.
    • We have all the knowledge, testing, diagnostics, and treatments to prevent heart disease and you can follow this instruction manual to start taking your heart health into your own hands.
  • The best time to make the decision to not die of heart disease and start taking action is in your 30s and 40s.
  • You cannot rely on your doctor to help you prevent heart disease or a heart attack. They are there to help you when you’re sick with heart disease or if you survive your first heart attack. You are the only person who can prevent yourself from dying of heart disease. The good news is, it’s pretty darn easy.
  • If you only read one thing here, make it the “How to not die of heart disease” section.
  • You can read my first post about heart disease here to see where it got started, and more about why I published this here. You can also download the PDF version here.
  • If you are building or want to build something in this space and help people not die of heart disease, please email me at jared@usv.com.

One thing I’ve learned through experience is that nobody has your back in the healthcare system. You need to be your own Advocate. I want to help people become their own Advocate and put their heart health in their own hands.

In early 2023 during a routine skin check at my dermatologist, I uncovered a basal-cell carcinoma. It’s a benign form of skin cancer. I freaked out. For the first time in my life I began to seriously think about my own mortality. I have two young children and I want to be there for them as they get old and be an engaged grandfather and all that amazing stuff. I don’t want to die young and have them grow up fatherless.

So I did the cliche thing every tech-entrepreneur-dude does: I signed up for a very expensive high-end concierge medicine service. This is an extraordinary privilege. I wanted to cover my bases, make sure nothing else was wrong with me, and do my best to understand how to stay healthy and protect against anything that could conceivably kill me while being relatively young. I wanted to control the things I could control.

The first thing that this high-end concierge practice did was evaluate my heart health. I thought my heart was totally fine. Previously, I would visit my primary care physician (PCP) twice a year and get my bloodwork done annually. Here’s what my last standard lipid panel (a standard cardiometabolic test conducted by most physicians) from my PCP looked like:

image

The results told me my LDL-C was fine, and my doctor said I didn’t need to take any additional preventative measures. I should simply maintain whatever it was I had been doing (e.g. exercising and eating somewhat healthy). This was from Forward Health - a tech-forward company that attempted to be a better version of One Medical. I shared these results with a leading lipidologist who proclaimed: “Not sure if the lab or the primary care doc said an LDL-C of 116 mg/dL was fine but that concentration is the 50th percentile population cut point in the MESA study and should never ever be considered as normal.”

When I signed up for concierge medicine, the first thing they did was an extended lipid panel - a more extensive test that measures more important biomarkers like ApoB and Lp(a). I was shocked when my results came back:

The first rule of better care is to totally ignore the color which are inserted by labs to please customers. The ranges they chose for degrees of risk are way out of date.
The first rule of better care is to totally ignore the color which are inserted by labs to please customers. The ranges they chose for degrees of risk are way out of date.

I learned that my ApoB (Apoliproprotein B) is not good. (It’s also important to note that, according to a lipidologist friend, an ApoB of 96 is at a totally unacceptable 50th percentile population cutpoint from Framingham Offspring Study.) I needed to get it lower. This test showed that if I continued on my trajectory, I would likely suffer from heart disease over time. This test also told me I don’t suffer from bad Lp(a) - that was a relief. As a result of my high ApoB and moderate LDL-C, my doctor immediately prescribed a statin and said I should get a CTA scan to detect any existing heart disease. My CTA scan confirmed that I had calcified plaque in my arteries (ie, heart disease). (By the way, I’ll get to what all of these fancy acronyms mean soon. Don’t worry if you don’t know what they are - I didn’t know either.)

Comparing and contrasting these two experiences was profoundly insightful for me. My PCP (primary care physician) was following standard guidelines and proclaimed that based on my results I was “totally okay.” He was not looking for more important biomarkers like ApoB or Lp(a) or Hs-CRP. I could go on my merry way and do my thing. But my expensive concierge doctor showed me I had early-stage heart disease, needed to be on a statin to lower my ApoB, and that if I kept doing whatever I was doing, I’d grow increasingly more at risk of dying of heart disease. Since then, I’ve course-corrected and taken my heart health seriously. It’s something I work on every day and it’s reflected in the medications I take, the tests I get, the food I eat, and the way I live my life. I’ve made the conscious decision to not die of heart disease.

I quickly realized that I didn’t need to sign up for an expensive concierge service to get these tests done. If I had known more about heart health beforehand, I could have asked (well, really demanded) my PCP to order these tests for me. When it comes to heart health, the tests you need to understand the most important biomarkers and whether or not you have disease (via imaging) are affordable for most people. We are talking $80 or so of blood tests twice annually and a one-time $150 imaging test that needs to be done every one to five years depending on your results. You don’t have to be rich to protect your heart the exact same way many billionaires and millionaires do. As far as preventative health goes, it’s easy, and my goal with this is to provide the knowledge, tools, and playbook to help you take control of your heart health the same way an elite billionaire would. For almost everyone, you don’t have to die of heart disease if you don’t want to.

The other reason I am doing this is because it’s critical that people be their own Advocate when they navigate the health system, and I want this to be a tool for everyone to do exactly that. What does being your own Advocate mean? I learned the term Advocate from my father-in-law who is a retired gastroenterologist. After we had our first child, my wife suffered from complications from a c-section. We were tied up in the hospital for over a week, and it was unclear whether we’d all make it home together. We were at one of the best hospitals in the country, but the attention we received from attending doctors and nurses was pretty frightening. Hours would go by between visits. They’d prescribe medications only to have them filled the following day. I quickly grew frustrated and realized that we needed to fight to take care of ourselves and find the right balance of being aggressively pushy and likable to the doctors and nurses. Even in hospitals where you think you are supposed to be taken care of every step of the way, you still need to fight for yourself and your loved ones. When I told my father-in-law about what was happening and that I was worried I was being too demanding, he told me I was doing the right thing by being our family’s Advocate, and that every doctor who is admitted to a hospital knows to do this if they want to receive quality care.

I experienced this repeatedly. We were admitted to the hospital for over a week when my daughter contracted viral meningitis (the scariest experience of my life). Even while working with incredible infectious disease doctors, I still had to fight and constantly remind people what the next steps were during our admission. Nobody is watching over you - it’s your job to organize things and ensure they’re on track. I had to coordinate between the infectious disease departments and neurology departments and make sure the people doing the lumbar puncture on my 9-month-old daughter weren’t just residents practicing on my child but experts who had conducted the procedure countless times before. You must Advocate for yourself and the ones you love.

While doctors may have the best of intentions and have in many ways engaged in one of the noblest of professions, they cannot and do not take care of you as well as you can take care of yourself. We are participating in a healthcare system that is incentivized to prioritize making money as opposed to keeping us healthy and out of the system in the first place. You need to fight for yourself. This guide is intended to help you fight for your heart.

I am also doing this because, like any child, there’s something deep down inside of me that wants to make my parents proud. Both of my parents are doctors. My mother was an internist for many years and my father was a cardiologist. He spent almost the entirety of his career trying to convince people they didn’t have to die of heart disease, and that we could use new technologies, namely CT and CTA scans, to detect and treat heart disease. His quest was initially met with resistance, but over time people converted, and now every cardiologist who understands anything about heart disease believes in what my father fought for, and they know his name and the work that he has done. He is widely published and has taught a new generation of cardiologists best practices when it comes to using imaging to detect and understand heart disease. There’s a piece of me that wants to help progress his work and bring what he has shared with the medical world to the broader patient population.

I’m a technology investor and entrepreneur, and believe we need a consumer facing company that is specifically dedicated to helping people not die of heart disease. I think you can do a lot of good in the world and build something quite meaningful by focusing on this problem. I have an idea of what the product and service looks like, but the thing I am questioning is how many people actually care about this? And care enough about it to actually do something. Of course we don’t want to die of something that’s totally avoidable, but heart disease is not something we experience every day. When we do experience it it’s because we either drop dead of a heart attack, have a near-death scare from a heart attack, or know someone in our family or friend group who suffered from a heart attack. We don’t think about it daily, and taking care of ourselves requires preventative measures that most people either don’t have the time to do or they just don’t want to prioritize. I get that completely. These services can also be expensive (although I am convinced a heart focused one can be delivered in an affordable way to millions of people). So part of my motivation is to actually see how many people care about this. How many people will read this? How many people will take the simple steps to avoid heart disease? And how many people would be interested in a service that makes taking these steps seamless and easy and affordable? I don’t know the answers to those questions, and I want to help figure them out.

What I do know is that whenever I talk about this with friends, their eyes light up. Particularly friends in their 30s and 40s who have recently had children and now think about their own mortality. They’re all interested in this, but I’ve been disappointed that only a minority of them have actually taken the requisite steps that I’ve learned about and recommend in this guide. I hope that changes. I’m an optimist, so I think it will. Today when I was dropping my children off at school, a fellow parent and entrepreneur told me he read an article I wrote about heart disease and called his doctor and is getting tested. That gave me hope. Interactions like that make me believe this is a worthwhile endeavor.

At the very least, I hope this guide is informative and helps you or someone you love avoid dying from heart disease.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death globally. It is the thing that kills more people on Planet Earth every year than anything else for both men and women.

image

It’s not just an old-people problem. 25% of heart attacks occur in people younger than 54 years of age. This is a staggering statistic unknown to most, including primary care physicians! That percentage continues to grow over time as the general population becomes increasingly less healthy (ie, sedentary, obese, poor diet, etc.). For all the damage heart disease inflicts on people’s lives and our health systems, it receives very little attention. Take a look at how frequently population killers are covered by the media:

image

It’s not sexy, and as a result, an overwhelming majority of the population is unaware of how to avoid succumbing to it. I think that’s super messed up and needs to change.

The thing about heart disease is that we have all the tools to make it a nonentity and remove it from the Top 10 leading causes of death. Unfortunately, for a whole host of reasons, our primary care physicians are neither equipped or incentivized to lead the charge on fixing the problem. More often than not the first sign that someone has heart disease is they drop dead of a heart attack. And by the time fortunate patients who don’t drop dead approach their doctor about chest pain or other symptoms (eg shortness of breath with exertion, palpitations, vague dizziness, and fatigue) and are referred to a cardiologist, that cardiologist is going to wish you had visited them five years ago. Atherosclerosis is a disease that slowly builds over decades, so the best way to really avoid dying from it is to start getting educated and taking action in your late 20s, 30s, and 40s.

Over the past several months, I’ve spoken with several of the world’s leading cardiologists and lipidologists to better understand the key elements of heart disease prevention. One lipidologist I spoke with who works for a high-end concierge medicine service has had zero patients die of heart disease in the past ten years. What he does is not rocket science and anyone can do it if they know the right questions to ask. I’ve been compiling notes to get to the lowest common denominator of what is good enough and affordable so I can arm friends and family with the information and steps to put their heart health in their own hands. The best doctors unanimously agree that this is a preventable disease, but patients just don’t know what to do or how to navigate the health system to make sure they don’t succumb to it. This begs the question, if it’s so preventable, why don’t doctors take care of this for you?

This section is just me on a soapbox with an axe to grind about the way our healthcare system works. Feel free to skip it.

People who enter the medical profession usually do so for noble reasons. They want to help other people. It is extremely rewarding to save lives, and also emotionally turbulent when you can’t. Growing up, I watched my parents go to the hospital at all hours of the night when they were on-call. Their pagers would buzz and they’d drive right in. It’s a physically exhausting vocation, too. Doctors do not get enough credit for what they go through, both in terms of the time they spend training and the money they spend on medical school.

That said, as noble as the profession is, the incentives of our healthcare system are royally messed up. I am a firm believer that incentives drive behaviors. You can pretty much learn everything you need to know about why an industry works a certain way based on the underlying economic incentives. As a result, our healthcare system in the US is actually sick-care. It’s designed to treat sickness. That’s how it makes money. The sicker we are and the longer we are sick, the better it is for healthcare systems: from hospitals to big pharma to primary care doctors and all of these different constituents’ employees. The system doesn’t make money unless we are sick. (I highly recommend reading the book An American Sickness if you are interested in learning more about this.)

Once you understand that, it becomes obvious why we receive the type of medical care we do. Very few people in the medical profession are focused on ensuring we do not get sick. This work is largely relegated to preventative care doctors. Most of their services are out-of-pocket expenses since insurance really only covers things that treat sickness, not things that prevent it. That fact in and of itself is absolutely nuts. You’d think that insurance companies would want to pay to prevent you from getting sick because paying to treat you when you get sick is exponentially more expensive. But since your insurance is normally covered by your employer, and since the average American only stays with their employer for 3-4 years, there is no incentive to keep you from getting really sick since it likely will happen when you’re employed by someone else and under their insurance plan and dime. That is something uniquely American and a severe dysfunction of the system. Nobody wants to foot the bill for someone else’s problem down the road.

Anyways, back to these high-end concierge doctors that focus on preventative care. Since you’re paying out of pocket for them, they’re usually pretty darn good. They know a lot and are willing to do things that are outside of the standard healthcare guidelines. That’s because our guidelines usually lag 10-20 years behind the current science, and these preventative doctors follow the current science or something closer to it. The best practices they engage in are not common knowledge amongst most primary care physicians who are focused on cramming in as many patients in a day (every minute they run over with you is a dollar lost spending time with someone else). A lot of what concierge doctors do is bespoke and somewhat sophisticated and specific to their practices. But surprisingly, what they do to prevent and treat heart disease is not.

After speaking with many different practitioners who work in and run these practices, I’ve come to learn that everyone can get the same type of preventative heart healthcare that billionaires receive for roughly $300 or less a year. In fact, one person I spoke with who runs a very high-end concierge practice said to me that the heart health protocol of concierge medicine is something that really anyone can participate in so long as they know how to navigate it. That’s been the thing that’s shocked me the most - the fact that all of us can have access to the same heart healthcare that billionaires have access to for a couple hundred dollars out of pocket.

There are several different conditions that are categorized as heart disease, but for the sake of simplicity, I am going to talk about the most common one: atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (which I will henceforth refer to as ASCVD). ASCVD is what happens when cholesterol-laden plaque accumulates in the arteries and begins to obstruct blood flow to the heart and other parts of the body. Heart attacks happen when this plaque breaks free of the artery walls and clogs your artery pathway (called the lumens), creating a blood clot that restricts blood flow. This often results in death. This is also what causes a stroke, but instead of blood not being able to circulate to the heart, it cannot circulate to the brain.

ASCVD is bad because the accumulation of plaque in your arteries is the thing that leads to a heart attack, and that’s the thing that can lead to death.

So how does plaque form? The short answer is that something called LDL penetrates your artery walls and begins to accumulate there and gradually turns into plaque.

The medium scientific answer (which I’ve mostly summarized from the work of Peter Attia and Thomas Dayspring) is:

Plaque forms in your arteries when a lipoprotein (a particle made of protein and fats that carries cholesterol and triglycerides through your bloodstream to your cells) called ApoB (short for apolipoprotein B, a lipoprotein that coats LDL) crosses the endothelium and gets stuck in the subendothelial space after it becomes oxidized there. There are several things that enable ApoB to make this journey, like smoking and high blood pressure which damage the endothelium and make it vulnerable to penetration. When ApoB accumulates in the subendothelium the immune system tries to attack them and it sends monocytes that turn into macrophages to eat this oxidized LDL in order to remove it from the artery walls. If the macrophages eat too much of it they explode into foam cells and when enough foam cells gather they form a fatty streak in the coronary artery. That is plaque! What’s crazy is this process begins when you are a teenager and compounds over the duration of your life. For some it moves fast, for others it moves slowly.

These foam cells continue to ooze together and form a mass of lipids. To control the damage smooth muscle cells in your artery migrate to this site and they secrete a kind of matrix in an attempt to build a barrier around it, just like a scar, that ends up as a fibrous cap atop arterial plaque. This plaque continues to grow, at first towards the outer arterial wall, but then into the lumen, the passage through which the blood flows. At a certain point in time this plaque hardens and becomes calcified. Once it’s calcified it mostly becomes a permanent fixture within your artery. Since it’s calcified it doesn’t go anywhere. While it may seem scary, calcified plaque is not the plaque that breaks free and causes a blood clot leading to a heart attack. It’s the non-calcified plaque - or soft plaque, the stuff that over time becomes calcified - that we need to worry about. Soft plaque can erode and rupture and create a heart attack via blood clot.

I also like Jeffrey Wessler’s simple explanation of heart disease: “Coronary artery disease occurs when circulating fats in the blood (e.g. LDL) are pushed by a driving force (i.e. blood pressure) into a vessel wall that is vulnerable.”

There are several things called risk factors that increase the likelihood of developing heart disease (ie these are conditions that make it more likely bad things happen). Examples include things like high blood pressure (which, as Jeff alluded to, is the driving force pushing that LDL into your artery walls), high blood cholesterol (if you have more LDL in your blood, then it increases the likelihood it can penetrate your artery walls), and smoking (which damages and inflames your artery walls, making it easier for that LDL to enter). Over 50% of people in the United States have at least one of these risk factors. There are other medical conditions and lifestyle choices that are risk factors, too, like diabetes, obesity, poor nutrition, being physically inactive, and drinking alcohol - pretty much the run-of-the-mill things that we’ve all heard about that are considered unhealthy.

My father’s friend, James Min, an entrepreneur and guru of mine who started Cleerly, explains heart disease as something that is multi-parametric. It’s a fancy way to say there are multiple different components as driving factors. He classified them as the following:

  • Thrombotic - how well does your blood flow through your body?
  • Inflammatory - what is the state of your arteries and general cardiovascular system? Are they functional and healthy? Do they suffer from inflammation?
  • Atherosclerotic - what’s going on with your cholesterol?
  • Metabolic - how well does your body turn food into energy? Are you diabetic?

All of these things meaningfully contribute to heart disease if they’re on the wrong side of the spectrum.

There are also some genetic things that determine how susceptible you are to heart disease. Genes like APOE, CETP and APOC3 all influence your risk of heart disease, and a bad lipoprotein called Lp(a) is also passed down hereditarily. It can be good to screen for these things so you know how at-risk you are and how seriously you need to take the matter.

ASCVD happens when plaque builds in your arteries, and it’s caused by arterial wall cholesterol build up which is influenced by a variety of other issues. But the good news is that those things are largely within our control. If we can focus on them, we can ultimately avoid dying of the world’s #1 killer.

There’s a term in medicine called preventative care. It’s a fancy way of saying, “Don’t get sick or diseased.” Preventing heart disease is important for a variety of reasons, the primary one being so you don’t die. There are some other benefits as well. The heart sits at the epicenter of all things longevity and healthspan. The things you do to protect your heart also carry over and help to stave off other deadly diseases like cancer, Alzheimers, and metabolic conditions. If you’re interested in living a long and healthy life, the heart is the best place to start.

Doctors talk about heart disease prevention in different stages. First, there is primordial prevention, which is preventing heart disease before you have any sign of atherosclerosis (plaque accumulation). This is the best time to start! After that is primary (defined as having identifiable risk factors but no plaque), secondary (having plaque seen on an imaging test but not yet having experienced a major adverse cardiovascular event) and tertiary (you’ve survived a majorly bad event). The second best time to start is primary, then secondary, then tertiary. This is because you really just want to avoid getting plaque in your arteries - that’s the stuff that causes heart attacks and stroke (ie death). Here’s an image one of the leading lipidologists, Thomas Dayspring, shared with me.

image

I’m at the secondary prevention stage. I have a little bit of plaque in my arteries as seen on my CTA scan, so I take this stuff seriously. I don’t want anymore to accumulate over time. If I can achieve that by managing my risk factors, taking some medications, and living a healthy lifestyle, I’ll be totally fine. These healthy habits will likely help me avoid succumbing to other bad diseases, too. That begs the question, how do we prevent this thing so we don’t die from it?

If you speak with any good cardiologist, lipidologist, or concierge doctor who knows about heart health, they will emphatically claim that what most primary care physicians will do with patients to help them avoid heart disease is not enough. The status quo simply does not work. If you go for your annual physical, they will likely draw some blood for a standard lipid panel where they look at your total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, and triglycerides, and maybe some other stuff. They will also use antiquated scoring methodologies like the Framingham Score to determine what your 10 year risk of having a heart attack is. They’ll also check your blood pressure. It’s definitely better than nothing, but it’s not good enough.

Primary care physicians are following standard guidelines. The problem is the guidelines that most doctors follow lag progress in science and knowledge by 10 to 20 years! That’s nuts! But that’s how long it takes to update these guidelines. The standard of healthcare you get is decades behind what it should and could be. Remember, the system behaves in a way that does not prevent you from getting sick or diseased. Fortunately, there’s a better way for you as a patient.

Since I started my heart health journey, I’ve spoken with several of the world’s leading cardiologists and lipidologists to better understand the key elements of heart disease prevention. I’ve been lucky to access these people who mainly talk to me because they like my father. I’ve been compiling notes to get to the lowest common denominator of what is good enough (definitely not perfect!) and affordable so I can arm friends and family with the information and steps to put their heart health in their own hands. Fortunately, I’ve found that the steps and protocols for avoiding death by heart disease are very simple.

There are two things that are most important that your physician most likely will not do that you need to ask for to understand your risk factors and whether you currently suffer from heart disease. The results of these tests then determine the appropriate course of action for you (which will generally look similar for most people unless you are really diseased, in which case I’m glad you caught it now before dropping dead). These two things are called biomarkers and imaging diagnostics.

Biomarkers are measurements of specific things in your body, mainly lipids and proteins, that are proxies for how susceptible you are to developing heart disease. Biomarkers that are abnormal (ie too high or too low) may mean that something is wrong. They are indications as to whether your risk factors are actually showing up in the chemistry and biology of your body.

I asked several leading lipidologists to stack rank what they believe are the most important biomarkers for people to measure and manage. There’s no consensus, but this is close to it. All of these can be accessed through bloodwork and urinalysis and can be done at a local Quest Labs (I’d venture to bet there’s one within a 10-mile radius of your home), prescribed by your doctor, and will likely cost anywhere between $80-$120 out of pocket.

  1. ApoB
  2. Lipid profile to know triglycerides
  3. One time Lp(a)
  4. hsCRP
  5. Microalbumin creatinine ratio (MACR)
  6. Uric acid
  7. Homocysteine
  8. Insulin level, glucose and A1C
  9. Omega 3 test (Omega 3 index or Omegacheck)

The only thing you’d normally get from a physician as part of an annual physical bloodwork would be the lipid profile. And within that, really what you want to understand is Triglycerides and LDL-C as the most important components. Most of the above can be found in an expanded lipid panel, ideally from the Cleveland Heartlab (owned by Quest), Labcorp, or Boston Heart.

Every lipidologist I’ve spoken with has stressed the importance of measuring and managing ApoB above all else – it’s a far better predictor of cardiovascular disease than LDL-C (which is what physicians are most familiar with). Every standard deviation increase of ApoB raises the risk of myocardial infarction by 38%. Yet because guidelines regularly lag science, the AHA still recommends LDL-C over ApoB. Test for it regularly (ideally twice a year) and work to get it as low as possible (longevity doctor Peter Attia recommends 30-40mg per deciliter). Many lipidologists will say to focus on this above all else.

If you want to know more about each of these biomarkers and why they are important, you can dig in further:

Measures the ApoB (carrier for LDL and other cholesterol) in your blood. Cholesterol carried in ApoB particles builds up in arterial walls, starting the narrowing and hardening process; most similar to ‘non-HDL’ measurement on standard lipid panel.
Diet, statins, PCSK9 inhibitors, bempedoic acid, ezetimibe
Measures fats circulating in your blood stream.
Diet and Exercise Fibrates, Statin, Fish Oil
Member of the ApoB particle family. Occurs when an LDL merges with an ApoA, and tends to capture other lipid molecules
PCSK9 inhibitors, muvalaplin
C-reactive protein tends to spike in reaction to tissue injury or inflammation
Diet and Exercise, appropriate lipid modulating drugs
MACR (Urine microalbumin to creatinine ratio)
Test for Microalbuminuria, which causes kidney disease but is also a morbidity factor for cardiovascular risk. Studies have shown increases in risk for hypertensive people / diabetics, but also one which just shows an overall correlation with CVD deaths for people without these factors
Product from metabolizing purine, found in alcohol and food like meat/seafood. Too much can cause endothelial damage, increase blood pressure, and some studies show a correlation with Afib
Dietary changes to lessen purine rich foods, medication
Excess homecysteine may damage the lining of arteries or cause blood clots
Dietary Changes, specific B vitamins
Measures insulin efficiency and glucose control, indicating diabetes risk, which is a major cardiovascular risk factor. Can also screw up lipid metabolism, causing high TG, low HDL-C, and abnormal LDL-C
A1C <5.7%, Fasting glucose <100 mg/dL, Insulin within reference range
Healthy diet, regular exercise, possibly medications for glucose control.
Omega 3 test (Omega 3 index or Omegacheck)
Omega-3 fatty acids help lower triglyceride levels, which are linked with arterial buildup. When used in high-dose, prescription strength form can reduce TG and reduce residual risk after LDL-C is controlled in high CV-risk patients.
Increase intake of fish or omega-3 supplements, reduce intake of omega-6 fats

Lipidologists focus on understanding biomarkers and managing them as much as possible. Cardiologists care about understanding the state of disease and treating it. The only real way to understand whether you have heart disease is to know whether you have plaque in your arteries, and the best way to do that is to take a look at it with imaging technology. The same way people do colonoscopies to visually see if they have cancer, people use tools like a CT or CTA scan to visually see if there is any plaque (both soft and calcified) that has accumulated in your arteries.

Every cardiologist I’ve spoken with recommends getting your calcium score either through a basic CT scan (which costs roughly $150 out of pocket unless your doctor is savvy enough to navigate insurance) or a CTA scan, ideally one with Cleerly (or HeartFlow) imaging (these cost more – anywhere between $1-1.5k). Your calcium score will tell you how much calcified plaque you have in your arteries (i.e. atherosclerosis). Remember, everyone accumulates plaque as they age. You don’t want any more of it. Calcium scores measure calcified or “hard” plaque, the stuff soft plaque turns into. It’s a proxy for how much plaque you’re accumulating. CT scans will tell you this.

A CTA will measure both hard and soft plaque and the Cleerly scan will give you a 3D visualization of your arteries, tell you where the plaque exists, how much and what kind there is, and where your arteries are narrowing. If price is not an issue for you, absolutely get a CTA with Cleerly. At the bare minimum, get a CT scan. Depending on these diagnostic results, you’ll need to repeat this test once every 1-5 years, depending on the state of disease. The same way you get a colonoscopy at regular intervals to detect colon cancer and other disease, you should do this, too.

Most physicians will not be able to understand or read the results of your CT or CTA scan. You’ll likely need to visit a specialist, ideally a cardiologist, to do this. If you’re curious about what these look like, I had a CTA done with Cleerly and here are my results. Your results will tell you your state of disease. Sometimes you may have none. That’s great! Other times you may detect a severe stenosis (narrowing of the artery), in which case cardiologists may recommend some form of intervention. That may sound scary, but it’s less scary than waking up one morning and dying of a heart attack.

Key Takeaway: Get a CT or CTA scan, and if you can afford it go for the CTA with Cleerly.

Other Tests: There are some other things that are important to know as well. You must know your blood pressure. Fortunately, your primary care physician is more than capable of doing this. Genetic testing helps understand your predisposition to heart disease. GBinsights seems to be the one most concierge doctors are currently obsessed with. An electrocardiogram can also be a good test for detecting other major heart problems.

Now that we know the tests we need to run to better understand our biomarkers and state of disease, we need to know how to treat any existing disease and disease progression.

Between medication and knowledge about how to prevent or mitigate heart disease, we have all the requisite tools at our disposal to beat the thing. We should focus on mitigating our risk factors, managing biomarkers, and treating any existing disease we may have. If we think about the multi-parametric approach to heart disease, we have effective medications to help us across the board. The holy trifecta for heart disease are statins, ACE inhibitors, and baby aspirin (In Europe there is a polypill that combines these three drugs and has had an extremely positive impact).

  • Atherosclerotic: To help drive down our ApoB, we have statins which do miracles for lipid management. Some people believe that everyone should be on a statin so long as they don’t have adverse side effects. One thing to note is that statins can oftentimes be prescribed in doses that are too high. With drugs like rosuvastatin, at 5mg most people get 85% of the maximum reduction in ApoB reduction, so there’s really no need to go higher than 10mg. For those that have adverse reactions to statins, we now have substitutes like Nexlitol (which can be expensive). We also have new drugs like PCSK9 inhibitors such as Repatha, Praluent or Leqvio (an expensive injection) which do wonders for lipid management. I take a statin and Ezetimibe which has absolutely crushed my ApoB levels (I am likely what is called a hyperabsorber). There are even new drugs that are having a remarkable impact on Lp(a), a biomarker that we struggled to move with therapeutics for ages.
  • Thrombotic: ACE inhibitors will help to manage blood pressure if you have high blood pressure (another thing your PCP will test for). Baby aspirin will help with blood thinning and help to reduce blood clots - it has antiplatelet properties and can reduce arterial thrombosis.
  • Inflammatory: To help manage inflammation, there are new medications like colchicine that are normally only used in very high-risk patients.
  • Metabolic: We are entering an age of “magic medication.” With the advent of semaglutides (eg Ozempic, Wegovy, etc.), we now have medications that help with metabolic syndrome and weight management, and we have seen remarkable reductions in adverse heart events amongst populations on these medications.

If we go back to one of my favorite quotes, you’ll notice we have the right medications to treat the things that treat heart disease: “Coronary artery disease occurs when circulating fats in the blood (lipids) are pushed by a driving force (blood pressure) into a vessel wall that is vulnerable (endothelial dysfunction).” Ask your doctor or cardiologist about all of these and whether they’re right for you.

We can’t medicate heart disease out of existence quite yet. Behavioral changes, meaning modifying how you live your life, are usually also required. These changes are oriented around mitigating those risk factors we talked about: high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, smoking, diabetes, obesity, poor nutrition, being physically inactive, and drinking alcohol. None of this should surprise you - it’s essentially being healthy. Fortunately, everything I’ve learned that is “most important” to do behaviorally has many positive externalities - not only will it help your heart health, but it will also help your overall healthspan.

This means regular exercise (both strength training, ideally 3x per week, and cardio training that helps to improve V02 max like Zone 2 training). It also means diet (nutrition, in addition to pharmacology, is the most important thing to reduce ApoB). Sticking to a Mediterranean diet that is light on carbohydrates and saturated fats is almost always the safest bet. Almost every health diet is some permutation of this. Also, if you smoke, stop immediately.

  • You need to be mindful of what you put into your body. There are so many fad diets out there, but when it comes to heart health, it’s safe to say that a Mediterranean diet is best, ideally one that is focused on low carbohydrate and saturated fat intake. Don’t eat too much. Don’t eat too little. For me, as simple as this guidance is, I’ve found it to be the most difficult part. I love food. Particularly the stuff that’s not good for you: pasta and pizza and bread. I don’t beat myself up over being perfect when I diet. I just try to focus on eating well during the week, and on the weekends, I’ll usually indulge a couple times. What’s more important to me is the quality of the food I eat - I really try to avoid processed foods and stick to whole foods.
  • Regular exercise is critical, but being deliberate about the type of exercise is super important. We should target strength training ideally three times per week with a focus on resistance training. For cardio work, we should focus on improving our VO2 max by trying to get 2-3 hours of Zone 2 training in per week, and a set of HIIT at Zone 4. That’s a lot of stuff. Realistically, it’s nearly impossible to do that every week if you have a job, children, responsibilities, etc. I try to focus on the resistance training and Zone 2 training and get in 5-6 workouts per week. I don’t stress when I’m not perfect about this.
  • You need to sleep. Ideally, somewhere between 7-9 hours per night. Without it, we die faster. End of story. I used to invest in sleep trackers and neat technology to help me sleep better, but I found that being overly scientific about it made me sleep worse. I was putting pressure on myself to sleep better, and that pressure made me sleep worse. I usually know how much sleep I get, and I don’t really care about what “kind” of sleep I get so long as I feel good in the morning.
  • Stress sucks, and it kills you. And throwing your emotional health to the wayside can make life feel not fun. There’s enough literature out there with regard to how to manage stress and stay in touch with your emotions. I won’t get into it. I have been talking to a therapist weekly for years. It’s helped me to understand how to label my emotions, how those emotions drive my behaviors, and what causes me to feel those things. That’s been super helpful. I also love the mindfulness app Waking Up by Sam Harris. I think it’s like meditation, but it really works for me.
  • If you smoke, don’t. It’s going to kill you. You know that. It is the easiest way to die of heart disease. I used to smoke cigarettes. I picked them up in high school, smoked throughout college, and intermittently did when I was building my first two companies. I know how hard it is to quit. I’ve successfully used nicotine mints and gum over the years to wean myself off cigarettes.
  • Alcohol isn’t good for your health, and it’s really bad for your heart health. I think it’s unreasonable to tell people not to drink alcohol if they like it. I like an occasional glass of wine, and I love tequila. And I also like to drink in some social settings, but I don’t drink very often. As I’ve gotten older, my body just can’t handle it. It makes me sleep like crap, and I always feel bad the next morning. If you’re going to drink, at least make sure it’s really good alcohol that you enjoy and don’t drink too much of it.

These are a lot of behavioral changes! It can seem daunting. It is daunting. It’s hard to stomach just how to do all this stuff at once. Over time I think I’ve worked on it enough and it now brings me joy to exercise, eat well, and get sleep. I feel unhealthy if I don’t do those things, so they are just part of my routine. I’m no expert at habit forming. I’ve read some books on it, but generally, what I’ve found works for me is just biting off a little bit at a time and not getting mad at myself for not doing this perfectly. Everyone has their own healthy balance of enjoying life and its indulgences and being healthy. Find yours. It’s a lifelong journey.

(PS - for those who are interested in supplements, I recommend following SuppCo’s Heart Health Supplement Stack)

Between medication and knowledge about how to prevent or mitigate heart disease, we have all the requisite tools at our disposal to beat the thing. Every single lipidologist and cardiologist I’ve spoken with unanimously agrees that for almost everyone (unless you are an edge case or severely meaningfully diseased already) what I’ve highlighted above will do the trick. It’s not perfect by any means, but if people just did this stuff, heart disease would no longer be the leading cause of death.

These tests and medications and knowledge about healthy behavior have existed for a long time. They’re tools that are readily available and at our disposal, but you have to ask for them. They are not prescribed unless you are sick. And unfortunately, when it comes to heart disease, being sick sometimes means being dead. It takes effort to prevent this. Like many things, the biggest hurdles are knowledge and willpower. My hope is that the knowledge becomes pervasive, that accessing these diagnostics and treatments becomes easy, cheap, and ubiquitous (they pretty much already are), and that people are motivated enough to be their own advocates and take their health into their own hands and make the conscious decision to not die of heart disease.

You can die of something else, just not heart disease.

You have probably noticed this in the past, but if there’s one thing most physicians hate, it’s when their patients show up with a list of questions and demands because they “read something on the internet.” The “WebMD Patient” is oftentimes a loathed one.

I’ve gotten pretty good at this over time. Every time I visit the doctor or take my children to the doctor or have ended up in the hospital, I’m asked what type of medicine I practice. Both of my parents were doctors, so I was sort of raised with all this stuff floating around the house, but it doesn’t take much to have a physician begin to take you seriously. Normally, the biggest source of annoyance is they don’t want to spend unnecessary time with you because their incentive is to just see as many patients as they possibly can within one day.

So you’re going to show up to your doctor, either in person or via telemedicine, and begin to ask for a bunch of stuff that they don’t do for other patients and that will likely be new to them. They may not even know what much of the stuff you’re going to ask for is or means. It’s a recipe for chaos! But whatever. It’s your health. You’re your own Advocate. You have every right to ask for this stuff. I wrote a script for you to make your life easy. You can recite this aloud, print it out and bring it in, or just email it to them:

Hi Doc,

I’ve made the decision to take my heart health into my own hands, and I don’t want to die of heart disease. I need you to please order me some tests that are necessary for me, and I’ve made the decision that I want them. Here’s what I need:

  • I need an expanded lipid panel so I can understand the following biomarkers. You can order this from Cleveland Heart Labs, which is part of Quest Labs. I’ll also need a urinalysis to test for some of these biomarkers. I realize there will be an out-of-pocket expense, but it should not be any more than $100. Here’s what I need to test for:
    • ApoB
    • Lipid profile to know triglycerides
    • Lp(a)
    • hsCRP
    • MACR
    • Uric acid
    • Homocysteine
    • Insulin level and of course glucose and A1C
    • Omega 3 test (Omega 3 index or Omegacheck)
  • I also need to do a CT Scan because I need to know my calcium score. I know this will be another out-of-pocket expense, but it shouldn’t cost me more than $150.
    • If you are willing to spend more and get a better test result, replace CT Scan with CTA scan and $150 with $1,000. Ask to do a CTA with a Cleerly or HeartFlow reading.
  • While I’m at Quest or even right now, let’s check my blood pressure to ensure everything is okay.

When I get the results from these tests, I’d love to review them with you. If you don’t feel comfortable reviewing them with me, I’m happy to work with another doctor or cardiologist within my network that you’d recommend. I will also dump them into ChatGPT and see what it recommends and you can tell me whether you agree or disagree.

Thank you for helping me not die of heart disease! I really appreciate your supporting my decision to learn more about my heart health and to live a long and healthy life.

It’s pretty straightforward. If your doctor pushes back on you, just repeat: “I’ve decided to not die of heart disease and these are the tests I need to feel comfortable and address my own body and health. If you can’t order me these tests, please let me know and I am happy to take my business elsewhere.” And if they try to push and prod you on why you want every one of these tests, you can point them here.

Throw them into ChatGPT, of course! (And share them with your doctor.)

Here are some of my latest labs that I’ve done. And below is what ChatGPT says in response to these questions:

  • I am a 37-year-old male. I am 5’10 and weigh 170 pounds. I currently take a statin and ezetimibe.
  • Does anything stand out to you? Is anything abnormal?
  • Are there any biomarkers I should focus on improving?
  • What should I do to improve or maintain these results?
image
image

Here’s the response:

“Based on the lab results you've shared, several markers are notable and some recommendations can be made. Let's break it down:

Key Findings

  1. LDL Cholesterol (LDL-C): Your LDL-C is at 29 mg/dL, which is considerably below the optimal range. This is very low, likely due to your statin and ezetimibe therapy. While low LDL-C reduces cardiovascular risk, extremely low levels should be discussed with your doctor to ensure they are safe and intended.
  2. HDL Cholesterol (HDL-C): Your HDL-C is 44 mg/dL, which is acceptable but on the lower side of optimal (optimal is usually above 50 mg/dL). Higher HDL-C is generally protective against heart disease.
  3. Triglycerides: Your triglyceride level is 74 mg/dL, which is well within the optimal range.
  4. Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)]: Less than 10 mg/dL, which is excellent as high levels are associated with increased cardiovascular risk.
  5. Inflammation (hs-CRP): Your high-sensitivity C-reactive protein is <0.2 mg/L, indicating very low levels of inflammation, which is good for cardiovascular health.
  6. Omega-3 Index: Your omega-3 fatty acid levels are healthy at 6.8%, with a good balance between EPA and DHA, which are important for heart health.

Recommendations

  • Discuss LDL-C Levels: Given your very low LDL-C, it would be worthwhile to discuss with your healthcare provider whether adjustments to your statin therapy might be appropriate, or if such low levels are part of a therapeutic strategy, especially if you have a history of cardiovascular disease.
  • Boost HDL-C: To potentially improve your HDL-C, consider increasing physical activity, possibly incorporating more aerobic exercises. Additionally, dietary adjustments such as including more healthy fats from nuts, olive oil, and fatty fish can help.
  • Maintain Healthy Lifestyle: Continue with a balanced diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lean proteins. Limit intake of saturated fats and sugars, which you seem to be managing well given your current lipid profile.
  • Monitor and Maintain: Regular monitoring of your cholesterol levels and other biomarkers, along with routine consultations with your healthcare provider, will be essential in maintaining your health status, especially considering your current medication regimen.

Your current lab results suggest effective management of cholesterol and cardiovascular risk factors, likely aided by your medication and possibly your lifestyle choices. However, always consult with your healthcare provider for personalized advice and to ensure that your treatment plan is optimal for your specific health needs.”

Pretty incredible. Also free.

I can share this and the results directly with my doctor and make life easy.

I will try to update this over time. Ideally, I’d just like to open this up to a handful of people who care about it and we can all update it together.

I hope you find this useful. I hope you get a CTA or CT scan. I hope you learn about your biomarkers and risk factors. I hope you share this with your friends and loved ones. I hope you help yourself and others not die of heart disease.

If you’re interested in staying updated about heart-related things, drop your email here and I’ll send out a note whenever I get around to updating this.

Good luck. You got this.

I want to thank a lot of people who helped me along my heart health journey: Harvey Hecht, James Min, Thomas Dayspring, Arthur Agatstan, Andrea Klemes, Louis Malinow, Jeffrey Wessler, Neil Parikh, Steve Martocci, Alan Tisch, David Kopp and Carrie Weprin.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By Buttons840 2025-11-0817:2521 reply

    I am not a statin skeptic--or rather, I don't want to be a statin skeptic. I've done the research and it makes sense to me, but I still feel some social and psychological pressures to reject statins.

    When I see that it is widely accepted that ApoB is better to measure than LDL-C, but the industry continues to measure LDL-C, but not ApoB, I wonder why. It makes me skeptical.

    When I see that the purpose of statins is to reduce plaque buildup in the arteries, and that we have the ability to measure these plaque buildups with scans, but the scans are rarely done, I wonder why. Like, we will see a high LDL-C number (which, again, we should be looking at ApoB instead), and so we get worried about arterial plaque, and we have the ability to directly measure arterial plaque, but we don't, and instead just prescribe a statin. We're worried about X, and have the ability to measure X, but we don't measure X, and instead just prescribe a pill based on proxy indicator Y. It makes me skeptical.

    In the end statins reduce the chance of heart attack by like 30% I think. Not bad, but if you have a heart attack without statins, you probably (70%) would have had a heart attack with statins too. That's what a 30% risk reduction means, right?

    As you can see, I'm worried about cholesterol and statins.

    • By mac-mc 2025-11-0817:406 reply

      If you fix it without statins through better lifestyle and diet, that is the preferrable route.

      As to why medicine is like this, it's because it's conservative, usually about 17 years behind university research[0], and doctors are shackled to guidelines in most health systems or risk losing their licenses. It isn't a coincidence that the article author had his out-of-pocket concierge doctor tell him the more up-to-date stuff.

      [0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3241518/

      • By btilly 2025-11-0820:516 reply

        I have an objection to the "better lifestyle and diet" approach.

        Sure, it is absolutely true that better lifestyle and diet has a huge effect. However it is absolutely certain that the vast majority of people who are told to improve their lifestyle and diet, won't.

        The result is doctors giving advice that they know won't be followed. And thereby transferring potential fault from the doctor to the patient, with no improvement in actual outcomes. "I told the patient to lose weight and maintain that with a controlled diet." And yet, most people when told to diet, won't. Most people who start a diet won't complete it. And most people who lose weight on a diet, have the weight back within 5 years. Where each "most" actually is "the overwhelming majority". And the likelihood of the advice resulting in sustained weight loss probably being somewhere around a fraction of a percent.

        What, then, is the value of the doctor giving this lecture?

        (Disclaimer. I have lost 20 of the pounds I gained during COVID, and am making zero progress on the remaining 30. A few months ago I successfully started a good exercise routine. Given my history, I would expect to only follow it for a few years before falling off the wagon. I believe that this poor compliance puts me well above average. But do you know what I do reliably? Take my prescribed medicine!)

        • By a1studmuffin 2025-11-0822:403 reply

          Your health is ultimately your own responsibility - it's your body. You have free will, and your appetite for risk is yours alone. You can choose to ignore expert advice and refuse to wear a seatbelt, skip your rehabilitation exercises, invest all-in on crypto, or smoke cigarettes. None of this responsibility should fall on the expert if they communicated the risks clearly.

          • By getnormality 2025-11-0823:564 reply

            What you're communicating here, perhaps unintentionally, is that what matters is not results, but blame. If the doctor said what to do but the patient didn't do it, all that matters is the patient is to blame.

            You've communicated that by ignoring or dismissing the question of whether better outcomes are possible through other means than demanding that everyone follow doctors' orders and blaming them if they don't.

            "Who cares if better outcomes are possible, so long as blame is in the right place"? Is that how we want to approach this?

            • By recursive 2025-11-090:593 reply

              It's hard to help someone that doesn't want to be helped.

              • By getnormality 2025-11-091:293 reply

                Struggling to change is different from not wanting to change. People seem to have trouble with basic distinctions like this when they're heavy into moralizing failure to change.

                • By wjnc 2025-11-097:59

                  Profound point. My mother struggled with alcoholism and ultimately succumbed to that disease. In philosophy of mind they use “akrasia” and “akratic thinking” for acting against ones better judgement. It helped me somewhat getting to understand what my mother was going through at that time.

                  She wanted to change, tried a many multiple of times and it failed. Fault, guilt, blame are useless concepts to use on the Other. And only in moderation should they be applied to the Self. There deep disconnects between what we think, know and do.

                • By Terr_ 2025-11-099:04

                  I find it helps to explicitly abandon the expectation that each person has a unitary and consistent will.

                  Bob the gambler wants to quit and wants to wager, sometimes sequentially and sometimes simultaneously.

                  The question isn't whether the whole Bob "means it", but which version of Bob we want to ally-with to war against the other, and what conditions or limitations we put on that assistance.

                • By joannanewsom 2025-11-0910:41

                  Reading this thread it seems like you're the only one moralizing and looking down on people. I don't see anyone here shaming people for their choices. But somehow you seem to have read the worst interpretation of every reply.

              • By Retric 2025-11-096:09

                Drugs expand what helping yourself means to the point where people will actually do so.

                Statins, GLP-1 antagonists, etc isn’t magic, but it changes people’s behavior and bodies in such as way as to diminish the importance of willpower. Thus, it’s not that people are lacking instead our medicine is simply to primitive to help with a wide range of issues.

              • By DennisP 2025-11-092:341 reply

                Not that hard in this case. Just give them a pill.

                • By jaggederest 2025-11-092:441 reply

                  Or, as we're becoming aware with GLP-1 drugs, an injection. (For now!). It's better to help people behave better with drugs than moral condemnation. Almost infinitely better, as it turns out, regarding a lot of problematic behavior regarded as "untreatable" previously.

                  • By gropo 2025-11-0913:40

                    Why not both?

            • By UltraSane 2025-11-095:12

              The old adage "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" applies here.

            • By vacuity 2025-11-0917:08

              It may not be the case for statins specifically, but my main concern is side effects. If there was a panacea, I would support giving it to everyone, but lifestyle changes are usually more available, if not easier.

            • By EasyMark 2025-11-0914:031 reply

              Yeah this prickles my hackles too. It took a fairly high dosage of zepbound and many months for me to get to a normal set of eating habits after a couple of decades of bad, but a prediabetes scare surprise on my labs pushed me into the program, but I would not have done it by "white knuckling". I needed some medication to help me along. All these people just saying "calories in and calories out" "just start exercising dude" are making a complex issue into a "simple solution" that almost never works because change takes time; a lot of time that many people don't feel on a deep level that they have to apply to it. So, they just give up after a couple of weeks of "grit" and "will-power". Isn't it like maybe 1-3% succeed over time, while the rest fail when trying to lose significant weight or other health issues that could be resolved with habit only?

              • By calenti 2025-11-1013:45

                To me the terms mix and it helps to separate the things that are externally manageable from the things that are not. The physical is complex but straightforward - the body biochemistry operates on material in, biochemistry mix, expenditure out. The brain is physical - neurons, pathways, etc. The mind, OTOH, is a virtual little candle isolated in a prison of meat and bone trying to understand how to interact with the world around it. External forces can alter the body and brain, but only the mind can change the mind. And does, in ways that are very difficult to control because the sole operator is part of the mechanism. People who try to change on their own and can't aren't failing or weak, it's just really f-ing hard.

          • By btilly 2025-11-091:013 reply

            If my health is my responsibility, then shouldn't the treatment that I receive be to the standard that I request?

            In 2015, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26551272/ showed that medicating all of the way to normal works out better than medicating down to stage 1 hypertension, then insisting on diet and exercise. And yet my request in 2018 to be medicated down to normal blood pressure was refused, because the professional guidelines followed by the experts was to only medicate down to stage 1 hypertension, then get the patient to engage with diet and exercise. The expert standard of care was literally the opposite of what research had shown that they should do.

            I agree that experts should not be accountable for my laziness. But can you agree that experts should be accountable for following standard of care guidelines that are in direct conflict with medical research? And (as in my case) refusing the patient's request to be treated in a way that is consistent with what medical research says is optimal?

            • By mrlongroots 2025-11-091:30

              Maybe 80-90% of people should take doctors at face value, but it is easy and only getting easier to at least access the knowledge to better advocate for your own healthcare (thanks to LLMs), with better outcomes. Of course, this requires doctors that respect your ability to provide useful inputs, which in your case did not happen.

              My advice would be to "shop around" for doctors, establish a relationship where you demonstrate openness to what they say, try not to step on their toes unnecessarily, but also provide your own data and arguments. Some of the most "life-changing" interventions in terms of my own healthcare have been due to my own initiative and stubbornness, but I have doctors who humor me and respect my inputs. Credentials/vibes help here I think: in my case "the PhD student from the brand name school across the street who shows up with plots and regressions" is probably a soft signal that indicates that I mean business.

            • By ac29 2025-11-0919:11

              > In 2015, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26551272/ showed that medicating all of the way to normal works out better than medicating down to stage 1 hypertension

              Thanks for posting this. While I would generally advise a healthy dose of skepticism for any individual study, this one was very large and seems to be both well designed and executed. While there was a (statistically) significant increase in side effects with more intensive treatments, only about 1% more patients had adverse effects versus the standard treatment group, which seems like a very reasonable risk given the improved outcomes.

              I've been trying to get my blood pressure under control recently and was thinking getting down to 12x/8x was good enough, but this has me rethinking that.

            • By gropo 2025-11-0913:42

              You should have bought some illegal street diet and exercise or cholesterol meds or whatever.

          • By kelseyfrog 2025-11-0822:471 reply

            What if you have an intrinsically lower ability to perform temporal discounting?

            • By nradov 2025-11-090:241 reply

              Is that really something intrinsic and fixed or can you improve it over time with deliberate effort?

              • By kelseyfrog 2025-11-091:041 reply

                Open to evidence either way. I haven't seen people improve it even with what seems to be terrible negative consequences associated with poor temporal discounting ability, but I'd love to read differing perspectives.

                • By btilly 2025-11-091:161 reply

                  Research on heritability have found that the amount of temporal discounting we do is moderately heritable. With twin studies ranging from 30-60% of our natural variability explained by genes.

                  This strongly suggests that genetics definitely slips a thumb on the scale, but ultimately we are able to also impact our personal behavior.

                  More importantly, research such as https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31270766/ shows that there are techniques (such as mindfulness practices) that have been demonstrated to improve our abilities in practice. I have personally seen these have an impact.

                  Of course if you have a condition such as severe ADHD, you might not be able to reach the same level as is possible for someone with good genetics. But you still have the ability to move the needle. If you have a condition such as traumatic brain injury, even your ability to move the needle may be lacking.

                  But most of us should be able to make a positive change.

                  • By Filligree 2025-11-093:471 reply

                    > This strongly suggests that genetics definitely slips a thumb on the scale, but ultimately we are able to also impact our personal behavior.

                    If it's 30-60% heritable, that leaves 70-40% to split between personal decisions and environment. It does not guarantee that personal decisions matter much at all...

                    • By btilly 2025-11-096:281 reply

                      That is why I said "strongly suggests" instead of "guarantees".

                      And then further followed up with a link to research showing that it is, in fact, possible to change. With advice on how to change it.

                      • By kelseyfrog 2025-11-103:15

                        What would be the upper bound of the effect of heritability where responsibility is no longer assumed?

        • By zzzeek 2025-11-0823:013 reply

          > Sure, it is absolutely true that better lifestyle and diet has a huge effect.

          not for me. My cholesterol was hovering in the high 200's, then finally hit 300 and I completely freaked out, radically changed my diet, and lost 22 pounds (from 180 to 158).

          What did my high cholesterol do ? It did absolutely nothing. ticked down to like, 280.

          So I'm on the statins. my total cholesterol went from high 200's to about 150 in a month and was impacting my liver function. so we reduced the statins to a very low dose (5mg three times a week, crazy low). My total cholesterol hovers around 200 now. My cardiologist tells me that the conventional wisdom of "diet and exercise" is almost entirely disproven to have any meaningful effect on lipids these days (though i havent researched deeply).

          • By sn9 2025-11-0823:462 reply

            > My cardiologist tells me that the conventional wisdom of "diet and exercise" is almost entirely disproven to have any meaningful effect on lipids these days (though i havent researched deeply).

            I would be immensely skeptical of this unless he was talking about something much more narrow, like how there's a fraction of people who have really unfortunate genetics and can only improve their blood lipids with medication.

            We have mountains of data showing that diet can massively improve lipids, and the combination of diet and exercise are our largest levers for reducing the risk of heart disease for most people. (There are always some fraction of people who can do everything right but have outlier genetics that require medication anyway, just as some people have outlier genetics and can smoke a pack a day their whole lives and reach their 90s.)

            I'd check out the Barbell Medicine podcast for anything related to the intersection of lifestyle and health. They're extremely evidence based with a preference for measurable improvements in outcomes over hypothetical mechanisms.

            Relevant to this thread are their episodes on testing and screening, hypertension / high blood pressure, cholesterol, fiber, and the new PREVENT heart disease risk calculator.

            I'd also check out the episodes on diabetes, Alzheimer's, fatty liver disease, and health priorities.

            • By agiacalone 2025-11-091:011 reply

              > I would be immensely skeptical of this unless he was talking about something much more narrow, like how there's a fraction of people who have really unfortunate genetics and can only improve their blood lipids with medication.

              I am one of those unfortunate genetic people, sadly, and have had high cholesterol numbers since my early 20s. Most of my older grandparents passed from heart disease. Now in my 40s, have a decent diet, and my numbers are < 100 for LDL. Current (and previous) PCPs have indicated to me that diet will have little effect for me, and that I will likely be on statins for most of my life. Experiments with stopping the statins have shot my LDL numbers through the roof.

              The good news is that it's a pretty low dose with decently high effect.

              • By zzzeek 2025-11-0918:24

                both of my parents have low cholesterol, my mom's cholesterol is naturally under 200, my dad is on statins but the highest he ever got was about 230. they are in their 80s. Nobody on any side of my family (for which I have about 25 first cousins) has ever had any heart disease of any kind, no bypass surgeries, no heart attacks, nothing.

                I'm familiar with the genetically high cholesterol thing and when you look at that you see parents/grandparents having heart attacks in their 40's. nothing like any of that in my family.

                anyway yes im on the statins and probably need to boost my dose a little more to be below 200.

            • By cthalupa 2025-11-096:55

              Diet and exercise are hugely important to health in general, and can make a significant impact on lipids.

              They are unlikely to get lipid levels down low enough to reach soft plaque regression levels. You need to get sustained levels below 50 to 70 depending on genetics, Lp(a), etc.

              If you've lived a healthy life in general and don't have genetically bad Lp(a) this advice is probably enough for you staying that way. If you've spent a significant portion of it with bad lipids for whatever reason, you almost certainly need to go on a combo therapy to get to regression levels.

          • By btilly 2025-11-091:071 reply

            Your anecdotal report that diet and exercise did not have a huge effect on your cholesterol does not discount the mountain of evidence that we have showing that diet and exercise has a huge effect on health and lifespan.

            These effects were first demonstrated in 1953. And has been confirmed over and over again since.

            So don't discount the value of diet and exercise just because losing weight didn't fix your cholesterol.

            • By zzzeek 2025-11-0918:21

              yeah I read all that and it's why i did "diet" (already exercised) first.

              still doesnt explain what my cardiologist was talking about, though. he's not the first dr. to tell me that "diet isn't really going to help you much". one dr. said, "if you went totally vegan, maybe it would have a slight effect". so no I didnt go totally vegan.

              i think the idea is diet/exercise can make a 20 point dent in your total cholesterol but in practice, not much more than that, if you have total cholesterol over 250 kind of thing.

          • By bluGill 2025-11-090:57

            i think diet an exercise can get you 20 points lower but you needed 150 or so and no diet claims that.

            i don't know how to source that but I recall a few 20 points lower diets making the news over the years

        • By Spooky23 2025-11-0915:35

          I think people use it as cudgel to blame people and as a crutch to avoid action. And we ignore the psychological and other factors that make improving lifestyle and eating better difficult.

          No doctor wants their patient to have a stroke. But they also only get to meet patients where they are.

        • By nradov 2025-11-090:223 reply

          You're arguing against a strawman. The reality is that most doctors will tell the patient their options and let them pick. While statins have some significant side effects in many patients, there is no downside to a better diet and frequent hard exercise (assuming proper technique). So it usually makes sense to at least try lifestyle modification as the initial therapy. And if that doesn't work for whatever reason then prescribe the drugs.

          • By cthalupa 2025-11-096:59

            > While statins have some significant side effects in many patients

            Some statins have significant side effect in some patients.

            We have many "new" statins that the overwhelming majority of people have no side effects on. Exceedingly small amounts of people have issues with things like rosuvastatin and pitavastatin, and for people that do, repatha and other pcsk9 inhibitors often work fine.

            > no downside to a better diet and frequent hard exercise (assuming proper technique). So it usually makes sense to at least try lifestyle modification as the initial therapy.

            There is a downside to delaying treatment, and particularly so when they are far out of range, or have spent an extended amount of time out of range.

          • By btilly 2025-11-090:531 reply

            Are you sure that this is a strawman?

            Accepted medical guidelines not long ago said to bring blood pressure from the dangerous range, to elevated, then encourage patients to engage in diet and exercise. Research such as https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26551272/ demonstrated that it is better to medicate all of the way to the normal range.

            I personally had specialist in blood pressure follow the old advice around 2018. I asked for further medication, and he refused to give it. In so doing, he was following accepted practice, per professional guidelines. This left me with elevated blood pressure for several years. This despite the fact that when I was personally physically fit (when my blood pressure problems were discovered, I still had my crossfit bod), that did not help my blood pressure.

            Guidelines are continuing to evolve. Even today, guidelines about how far down to take blood pressure are somewhat vague in the USA. Many countries stick to the older, higher, targets in who even gets medicated in the first place.

            It wasn't until about 2 years ago that I encountered a doctor who was willing to medicate me all of the way into the normal range. Given the 2015 research, I'm very happy about this. But it is far from a guarantee that a random person on HN with high blood pressure will encounter a doctor who is willing to do the same.

            That's why I believe that this is not a strawman position. I'd be curious to hear your case explaining why you wrongly assumed that it was.

            • By nradov 2025-11-092:211 reply

              Yes, I'm sure you were arguing against a strawman. The majority of doctors will tell patients about the available options which are generally safe, and allow them to pick. And they don't usually blame patients. Your personal experience might have been different but it was atypical and just an anecdote.

              • By btilly 2025-11-096:27

                First, if I'm basing it on things that actually happened, then by definition it cannot be a strawman argument. And your insisting otherwise is just plain rude.

                Second, you are just giving your opinion about doctors. You are not providing evidence. In fact what you claim about doctors is just straight up wrong.

                I already gave you a link to a 2015 study that demonstrates what the standard of care was at that point. Here is https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2018/0115/p72.html demonstrating that in 2018, the year I had my interaction, the standards were shifting. With not all major medical organizations endorsing bringing blood pressure down to what the 2015 study said they should.

                In fact if you look at the actual AAFP guidance, see https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2018/0315/p413.pdf. Read to the last page and look for "Follow up". This matches my experience. I was brought to stage 1 hypertension, then "nonpharmological interventions" were recommended. Namely diet and exercise.

                And now it is apparent that you were dead wrong. My doctor in 2018 was not some rogue jerk. My doctor was exactly following the recommended standard of care put forth in that year by a major medical association.

                While the USA has evolved their standards further, that 2018 standard in the USA is still common in many other countries.

                But look on the bright side. You just were given the opportunity to learn something.

          • By CalChris 2025-11-093:26

            > While statins have some significant side effects in many patients

            It's more accurate to say that certain statins have significant side effects in certain patients. Atorvastatin made me dizzy. But I switched to Pravachol and that went away. I switched again to Rosuvastatin and it stayed away.

            Not all statins are the same.

        • By aldarion 2025-11-0913:081 reply

          That is because dietary advice they give is actually bad. It mostly boils down to "limit calories while eating standard western diet" but that is impossible to follow long-term as SWD and similar (e.g. food pyramid) diets are nutrient-deficient.

          How many doctors recommend things like paleo diet, intermittent fasting and so on? Not many, I think - most simply focus on calories, combined with the advice that is either extremely generalized ("avoid sugar") or outright counterproductive ("eat 5 - 6 meals a day"). And then they wonder why people can't follow their diet.

          Here I described my own experiences: https://ketoview.wordpress.com/2025/11/09/low-fodmap-keto-di...

          • By GrzegorzWidla 2025-11-1618:34

            Nobody recommends western diet. It’s standard practice to recommend DASH or Mediterranean one.

        • By gropo 2025-11-0913:36

          Sure it's absolutely true (I stopped reading there.)

      • By kryogen1c 2025-11-0818:152 reply

        >doctors are shackled to guidelines

        To expand, one of the coverage pillars of malpractice insurance (in the US) is the "standard of care". This is basically what most doctors and their associations consider acceptable, which by definition excludes new, better techniques.

        This is both a bug and a feature. A move fast and break things philosophy would cause more harm than good, but it also prevents rapid adoption of incremental improvements.

        • By nradov 2025-11-090:28

          You are conflating two different things. The standard of care in a malpractice lawsuit is not necessarily the same as clinical practice guidelines. In reality doctors are free to rapidly adopt incremental improvements, especially when they are evidence based.

        • By mac-mc 2025-11-0819:24

          17 years is far from rapid or move fast and break things. ApoB has been known about for quite a long time, since the 90s its effects have been obvious, and showed up in research in the 70s-80s!!! It's still not part of standard testing!!!

          Guidelines also leads to standards of care being random and heavily driven by politics & financial reasons disguised as medical best practice. South Korea and India are "parallel testing" places, which saves time, while the USA & others are serial testing places mostly because of their funding models.

          Talk to any American doctor and they will give you a bunch of emotionally wrapped cope about why it's bad because the cognitive dissonance sucks and there are liability reasons to avoid admitting your wrong. I would argue that in many cases, parallel testing is cheaper because $300 of tests is cheaper than 4 chained $500 doctor visits. But whatever.

      • By nradov 2025-11-0823:011 reply

        There is virtually zero chance that a doctor will lose their medical license for diverging from the from the usual clinical practice guidelines around statins. Check the state medical board disciplinary records.

        But if they're employed by a health system and fail to follow company policy then yes, they could be fired.

        • By mac-mc 2025-11-104:22

          Different countries are different, some are far more trigger happy about it like Canada. What you suggest as an alternative other than 'git gud' diet & exercise also changes it.

      • By array_key_first 2025-11-142:31

        No, actually, you should improve your lifestyle and diet and also take statins.

        Ever cardiologist ever will tell you that statins work best when you make diet and lifestyle changes. They tell you that, to your face. It's not a secret. This actually goes for A LOT of medications. Usually, medication + diet and exercise is better than medication alone. They also test medications like this.

      • By 31carmichael 2025-11-106:07

        You can only do things to reduce your risk. And whatever intervention would be based on overall population statistics, since it's difficult to know your own personal risk. Heart disease kills marathon runners. You can't just "fix it". Someone who has naturally high cholesterol won't magically be okay by changing their lifestyle and diet.

      • By hshdhdhj4444 2025-11-0821:221 reply

        Licensing but also insurance.

        I think only recently have insurance companies started covering APoB testing in your annual exams (or that may just be my insurance…).

        • By nradov 2025-11-090:35

          Many commercial health plans will only cover an ApoB blood test for patients with certain conditions or risk factors. But if you want it you can pay out of pocket for like $70.

    • By Aurornis 2025-11-0818:002 reply

      > When I see that it is widely accepted that ApoB is better to measure than LDL-C, but the industry continues to measure LDL-C, but not ApoB, I wonder why. It makes me skeptical.

      ApoB is shaping up to be an incremental improvement in measurements, but health and fitness influencers have taken the marginal improvement and turned it into a hot topic to talk about.

      This happens with everything in fitness: To remain topical and relevant, you always need to be taking about the newest, most cutting edge advances. If it’s contrarian or it makes you feel more informed than your doctor, it’s a perfect topic to adopt for podcasts and social media content.

      ApoB is good, but it’s not necessarily the night and day difference or some radical medical advancement that obsoletes LDL-C. For practical purposes, measuring LDL-C is good enough for most people to get a general idea of the direction of their CVD risk. The influencers like to talk about edge cases where LDL-C is low but then ApoB comes along and reveals a hidden risk, but as even this article shows there isn’t even consensus about where the risk levels are for ApoB right now. A lot of the influencers are using alternative thresholds for ApoB that come from different sources.

      > In the end statins reduce the chance of heart attack by like 30% I think. Not bad, but if you have a heart attack without statins, you probably (70%) would have had a heart attack with statins too. That's what a 30% risk reduction means, right?

      30% reduction in a life threatening issue is huge. I don’t see why you would want to diminish that.

      If you were given the choice of two different dangerous roads where one road had a 30% lower chance of getting into a life-threatening car crash, you would probably think that the choice was obvious, not that the two roads were basically the same.

      • By flenserboy 2025-11-0818:092 reply

        numbers often quoted in favor of statins use relative instead of absolute risk. when seen in absolute terms there is little case for statins except in some possible particular cases. they also do little, if anything, when it comes to life extension — the expected lifespan of a statin user is often estimated to be four days longer than that of those who do not use them. not only is this essentially statistical noise, it discounts the lowered quality-of-life side effects experienced by many who have been put on statins.

        • By Buttons840 2025-11-0819:251 reply

          This is all true. If you take a statin and it causes no issues, you're... maybe (30%, yay!) better off for it.

          If a statin makes you feel miserable, I think any doctor would sympathize with a calculated decision to stop them. There are many types of statins to try though, so hopefully one would work without side effects.

          • By marcosdumay 2025-11-0819:51

            > There are many types of statins to try though

            Most with efficacy determined by the proxy variable of LDL-C levels, and with even more questionable results in actual lifetime improvement.

            I too really wanted not to be that skeptical about medicinal research. But if I had high cholesterol and a doctor recommended newer statins to me, I don't think I would take them.

        • By Maxion 2025-11-0819:05

          AFAIK statins show better numbers for secondary prevention. For primary prevention its a toss up.

      • By endominus 2025-11-0819:531 reply

        >If you were given the choice of two different dangerous roads where one road had a 30% lower chance of getting into a life-threatening car crash, you would probably think that the choice was obvious, not that the two roads were basically the same.

        You could absolutely think that they were basically the same, depending on the base rate. The differece between a one-in-a-million and 0.7-in-a-million is 30%, but it wouldn't be humanly perceivable. We're all likely faced with situations like that regularly. Differing airlines probably have much greater variances in their crash statistics, but it just doesn't matter in 99.99999% of flights.

    • By sixtyj 2025-11-0817:543 reply

      https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...

      Meta-analysis conclusion: This literature-based meta-analysis did not find evidence for the benefit of statin therapy on all-cause mortality in a high-risk primary prevention set-up.

      • By Aurornis 2025-11-0818:025 reply

        A meta-analysis that only includes 11 studies on statins is immediately suspect.

        There have been a lot of studies on statins. If a meta-analysis comes along and only cherry picks a couple of them, something is up.

        • By GeoAtreides 2025-11-0818:51

          Have you read their methodology and understood how they did their selection? You could critique their actual methodology. Maybe their selection is backed by strong arguments, right? And if you think their methodology is weak, then please explain why.

          Not just throw a two-line comment disparaging the work of experienced specialists in the field.

          For the curious, here are the author affiliations for this study:

          Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England (Drs Ray, Seshasai, and Erqou); Department of Cardiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge (Dr Ray); Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Imperial College, and National Heart and Lung Institute, London, England (Dr Sever); Department of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands (Dr Jukema); and Department of Statistics (Dr Ford) and BHF Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine (Dr Sattar), University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.

        • By AuryGlenz 2025-11-0818:08

          That’s fair.

          This is totally unsourced now but I did a deep dive quite a while ago now and it seemed to me that studies largely found that statins after a heart attack helped all cause mortality (though not by a ton), but if they were prescribed to someone before a heart attack it wasn’t nearly as clear. Considering how they often make people feel it seems like people should be a bit skeptical.

        • By sixtyj 2025-11-090:32

          How many studies is enough? There were approx. 60k+ participants in them. If I got it right…

        • By owenversteeg 2025-11-0918:36

          Ah, you were so close...

          If you actually read the article, you would find the selection criteria and the explanation for the criteria.

          First, a preface.

          The article was published in 2009. At the time, AstraZeneca, the maker of the controversial statin Rosuvastatin, had been engaged in a yearslong intensive campaign to promote the drug. The editor of The Lancet wrote "AstraZeneca's tactics in marketing its cholesterol-lowering drug, rosuvastatin, raise disturbing questions about how drugs enter clinical practice and what measures exist to protect patients from inadequately investigated medicines"; CEO Tom McKillop [1] angrily fired back. Consumer rights group Public Citizen tried to get the medicine withdrawn for safety reasons; the FDA denied the request [2.]

          AstraZeneca prevailed, and Rosuvastatin proceeded to make billions of dollars a year in sales. Today, 42 million Americans take it and in 2015 it was the most prescribed branded drug in America.

          Now, back to the article. Most new drugs focus on studying the most diseased patients first and then, if possible, attempt to expand to the (far larger and more lucrative) prevention markets later. Statins are no different. The overwhelming majority of research on statins has been industry-funded, done on patients with CVD. Pharma companies want to expand to a larger market, of course. So there are efforts on many fronts. One was to broaden the definition of CVD or other criteria for starting statins. For example, in 2017 the definition of high blood pressure was successfully changed from 140/90 to 130/80. That bumped up the proportion of US adults with CVD from 36% in 2011-2014 [3] to 48% in 2013-2016 [4], or in other words, added 30 million US adults to the market. Similarly, in 2013 the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines encouraged starting statins for anyone with LDL-C ≥190 mg/dl "even in the absence of other risk factors" which increased statin use from 31 million to 92 million Americans from 2008-09 to 2018-19 [5.]

          Where did these changes come from, what motivated them? Studies, of course. Studies like the AstraZeneca-funded JUPITER trial, which claimed an improvement in the health of participants with even _low_ levels of LDL-C. A lot of this stuff was considered fairly strange, and it didn't seem to replicate. Thus the meta-analysis. Are statins truly useful for prevention?

          So, in short: Most studies investigating statins in real depth are funded or influenced by industry. They usually focus on the sickest patients, presumably to get a larger effect size, yet the industry is constantly trying to prescribe to a wider audience - the healthier patients - often on grounds that mainstream health authorities find weak. This meta-analysis was only able to include 11 studies because industry SOP is to study the sickest patients yet prescribe to a wider audience. And as you might then expect: "This literature-based meta-analysis did not find evidence for the benefit of statin therapy on all-cause mortality in a high-risk primary prevention set-up."

          [1] If the name sounds familiar, it's because Tom McKillop was the CEO of RBS who "aggressively" pursued leveraged buyouts up until its collapse and bailout in 2008.

          [2] Here's the 10-year followup on that: https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h1388

          [3] https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/epub/10.1161/CIR.00000000000... "total CVD prevalence, age >20y, both sexes" from Table 12-1 is 36%/92.1M

          [4] https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/epub/10.1161/CIR.00000000000... "total CVD prevalence, age >20y, both sexes" from Table 13-1 is 48%/121.5M

          [5] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10203693/

        • By ekianjo 2025-11-0818:061 reply

          > There have been a lot of studies on statins

          Financed by who?

          • By bluGill 2025-11-091:00

            Lots of people. Statins are fairly cheap and a lot of people are on them. Cholesterol is also cheap to measure. As a result the two are commonly studied. Even if your goal isn't the above it is probably in the study data.

      • By cthalupa 2025-11-097:09

        https://www.lipidjournal.com/article/S1933-2874(25)00317-4/f...

        Guidance from the National Lipid Association, based on a review of the current understanding of the science across quite a few different meta-studies, analysis, etc. Many of the referenced studies are meta-studies significantly larger than the one here.

        We have mountains of studies showing the negative impact of LDL-C (and inflammation! Which statins also reduce) on health. We have mountains of studies showing positive impact from statins. We have specific mechanistic understanding of how LDL-C and other atherogenic particles cause heart disease. We have mountains of studies show that statins directly lower the amount of atherogenic particles you have.

        This has been studied enough and sliced enough ways that yeah, there is evidence on both sides. But one side is effectively a mountain range, and the other is a small hill. I know which way I'm going to land on it.

      • By zargon 2025-11-0821:04

        Concentration of ApoB-carrying lipoproteins in the bloodstream as the driver of heart disease is one of the most strongly proven facts in medicine. Statins are proven to lower LDL (a close-enough substitute for ApoB in most situations) by about 30%. I can't look at the study now, but most likely it's a situation where patients' cholesterol has not been lowered enough by medication to make a meaningful difference. If you have an LDL of 160, statins aren't going to be sufficient. The issue is doctors/patients not targeting a sufficiently low cholesterol level.

    • By hshdhdhj4444 2025-11-0821:21

      > When I see that it is widely accepted that ApoB is better to measure than LDL-C, but the industry continues to measure LDL-C, but not ApoB, I wonder why. It makes me skeptical

      Because this is a recent understanding and healthcare tends to be a conservative industry that moves slowly. Sometimes too slowly.

      And also because LDL remains an excellent measure. The risk with LDL isn’t false positives. If someone has high LDL they likely have an elevated risk of heart disease. The problem with LDL testing is that someone with low LDL may still have a high risk of heart disease which may be captured in APoB testing.

    • By brandonb 2025-11-0821:451 reply

      > When I see that it is widely accepted that ApoB is better to measure than LDL-C, but the industry continues to measure LDL-C, but not ApoB, I wonder why. It makes me skeptical.

      Part of this is just that insurance coverage lags science. We've known that ApoB is more accurate than LDL since the 1990's or 2000's, but to be covered by insurance, several more steps have to happen.

      First, the major professional societies (like the American College of Cardiology or National Lipid Associations) have to issue formal guidelines.

      Then, the USPSTF (US Preventive Services Task Force) needs to review all of the evidence. They tend to do reviews only every 5 or 10 years. (Countries aside from the US have different organizations that perform a similar role.)

      If the USPSTF issues an "A" or "B" rating, then insurance companies are legally obligated to cover ApoB testing. But that also introduces a year or two lag since medical policies are revised and apply to the next plan year.

      The net effect is that the entire system is 17 years, on average, behind research.

      • By nradov 2025-11-090:42

        ApoB blood tests are relatively cheap. You can pay out of pocket about $70 if you really want one and insurance won't cover it.

        Most commercial health plans will cover an ApoB test for members with certain cardiac risk factors or medical conditions. But they generally won't cover it as a preventive screening for all members. I don't think we have enough evidence to justify broad screening yet, although that may be coming.

    • By logifail 2025-11-0819:052 reply

      > When I see that the purpose of statins is to reduce plaque buildup in the arteries, and that we have the ability to measure these plaque buildups with scans, but the scans are rarely done, I wonder why.

      I'd love to know where to get the right advice on this topic.

      I have high LDL-C, had a heart CT in hospital last week, yet the hospital's cardiologist phoned me yesterday to cancel a scheduled appointment to discuss the results(!), because she said I have zero arterial plaques and there's simply no need for us to meet.

      I feel really quite lost with this stuff :/

      • By Buttons840 2025-11-0819:201 reply

        If it was a calcium scan, it is expected to be zero until mid 40s. It doesn't really start to give a signal until then.

        A zero is still a zero though, and is associated with low risk of heart disease in the near future.

        • By logifail 2025-11-1012:52

          > If it was a calcium scan, it is expected to be zero until mid 40s.

          I turned 50 fairly recently...

      • By MPSimmons 2025-11-0819:341 reply

        How old are you? I was told that they're not considered diagnostic until somewhat later in life (>50) because the plaque may not have calcified yet, which could cause a false negative.

    • By netfortius 2025-11-0819:531 reply

      I was found to have high cholesterol in my late 20s. At the time the doctors (my cardiologist, then a second one brought in for advice) determined that the source was hereditary, but the effects would be the same. So they put me on statins. It's been 40 years now. I changed the statins three times since, when the actual one, at a specific time was no longer able to keep the values within acceptable limits. Approximately 8-9 years ago (I think) I ended up on Rosuvastatin 20mg, which I'm still taking every day. I do not maintain any diet (it'd be very hard, as I'm a heavy meat eater) and cholesterol levels are still staying within acceptable limits. Of course YMMV

      • By iaaan 2025-11-0820:151 reply

        No heart attacks or strokes? I'm in the same boat (hereditary issue), and altering my diet has never had any substantial effect on my numbers. I'm not overweight and rarely eat red meat, but have had trouble keeping onto a primary care physician long term (the people I keep picking seem to move between clinics constantly) in order to retain consistent access to a statin prescription, but as I continue to age I've been getting increasingly anxious that my time is coming.

        • By netfortius 2025-11-0820:56

          So far everything is good. I only had more of a logistic issue, once, when moving to France from the US, a few years back (retirement) and when my new doctor told me that the French do not recommend statins for people at my age and overall good shape (active, fit, etc. ), even if the numbers are high. I asked her to give me a referral to a cardiologist, to whom I mentioned my 35 years of statins in the US, and who was of the opinion that after such a long time and with no apparent side effects, he would recommend continuing on this type of médication. And that was it, so I'm now getting the prescription renewals almost "automatically", even as my cholesterol is staying within limits (under the assumption that it may increase, should I stop, especially considering the amazing cuisine and products to which I now have access :) )

    • By EasyMark 2025-11-0913:55

      I haven't had to touch statins to get my lipids profile much better. I used zepbound to lose about 50lbs and then weaned myself off that. I was a little afraid my “completely normal after 8 months of weight loss” blood panel status at the end of my zepbound journey would go back to the “bad” region, but I have maintained going on a year with a much better whole foods/lean meats based diet and moderate exercise (I do let myself have some red meat on Saturdays, otherwise I would explode from hamburger desires). So it was done through a combination of lifestyle changes and zepbound to help me bury the hunger monster long enough to learn new habits and get to a new normal. Him suggesting that “probably” most people should be on statins whether they need them or not seems like covering up the source of the problem. I do know that some people just naturally have lipid issues even when doing “all the healthy things” though. My mom is one of them.

    • By collingreen 2025-11-0817:502 reply

      I ALSO want to not be a statin-skeptic but, like you, these things look very weird to me. The most prescribed drugs in the country and we don't even try to check if they are addressing the actual problem?

      • By cthalupa 2025-11-097:13

        We have checked to see if they are addressing the problem more than probably any drug in history. The idea that we haven't is the result of skeptics cherry picking results that back up their point while ignoring the huge quantities of evidence supporting the efficacy of statins and other LDL lowering medications like ezetimibe, pcks9 inhibitors, etc.

        Statins are so good at what they do they even reduce the risk in people who are already at low risk for heart disease.

        https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

      • By nerdponx 2025-11-0818:131 reply

        There is a financial incentive not to look.

        • By matthewdgreen 2025-11-091:511 reply

          Whose incentive? All the major drugs are generic now and (at least my) insurance pays for them without even asking for a co-pay.

          • By nerdponx 2025-11-102:20

            That's fair. I know a lot of generic drugs are imported too, so maybe there isn't much pressure within the USA there. Unless the big domestic pharmaceutical companies are still making a lot of money on it even if generic options exist? I don't know.

    • By lateforwork 2025-11-0818:201 reply

      There are plenty of statin skeptics and for good reasons; see prior discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45430939

      • By m_a_g 2025-11-0818:323 reply

        > and for good reasons

        That prior discussion gives no good reasons. The linked medium posts are, to be frank, trash.

        Statins are well-tolerated drugs with little to no noticeable side effects. You might have to try a few. You may need to combine ezetimibe to maintain a moderate statin dosage level, and that's it. (Like the author of this article)

        Source: Leading cardiologists worldwide, and doctors of the rich and famous.

        • By guerby 2025-11-0819:051 reply

          What the BMJ has to say on this very topic of statins:

          https://www.bmj.com/campaign/statins-open-data

          So no settled science here.

          Unless you consider the BMJ a trash journal of course.

          • By davikr 2025-11-0914:411 reply

            note: > individuals at low risk of cardiovascular disease

            • By guerby 2025-11-0918:251 reply

              Yes, you're right.

              I pointed to this BMJ reference because in the article there is the following: "To help drive down our ApoB, we have statins which do miracles for lipid management. Some people believe that everyone should be on a statin so long as they don’t have adverse side effects."

              Most statins prescribed today are not for secondary prevention.

              A lot of doctors prescribe a statin immediately on seeing just one measure of "high" LDL without looking at any other parameter or context.

              • By davikr 2025-11-1017:11

                Yeah, for each level of cardiovascular risk (in America, probably calculated with PREVENT) there is a target LDL which should guide whether you should start or not a statin.

        • By zamadatix 2025-11-0819:081 reply

          I recently went on a statin (atorvastatin) and found I have the WILDEST dreams of my life if I don't take them in the morning, and my doctor said my liver readings were elevated after use but not enough he wants to switch it yet. Which alternative statins should I be looking at, or do they have even harder side effects to deal with?

          • By matthewdgreen 2025-11-091:53

            I have intense anxiety attacks on atorvastatin. Rosuvastatin at the low dose (5mg) doesn’t do much, but at 10mg and 20mg it caused the same effects. It took years and multiple cycles of going on and off the drugs to become confident this was the problem. I switched to Repatha which doesn’t have this problem (it does make me a bit hungry though) but it’s expensive and it took a while for my insurance to approve it.

        • By lateforwork 2025-11-0819:281 reply

          > Statins are well-tolerated drugs with little to no noticeable side effects.

          Sorry, that's nonsense. It is a dangerous drug with plenty of side effects. If it had no side effects it would be sold over the counter. The brain needs cholesterol to function. If you artificially remove cholesterol this is what happens: https://www.health.harvard.edu/cholesterol/new-findings-on-s...

          • By cthalupa 2025-11-097:261 reply

            No, your post is nonsense. You link a random article that doesn't even make the argument that you're making - that it's low cholesterol causing the memory loss - or that statins are causing the memory loss at all.

            And considering serum cholesterol cannot pass the blood brain barrier and that it is all synthesized de novo in the brain makes it an even sillier claim. Your serum cholesterol level does not have impact on your brain's cholesterol levels.

            Quite a few organs have the ability to synthesize cholesterol as needed and can do so just fine. Another area where we make use of cholesterol is for synthesizing hormones... but those organs can all synthesize it de novo just fine too.

            The new pkcs9 inhibitors have gotten people down to extremely low levels of LDL (<30 and <10!) and found no impact to cognition, hormone production, etc. We have mendelian randomization studies looking at people that genetically do not produce pkcs9 and have basically nonexistent serum levels of LDL, no impact to cognition, hormone production, etc.

            https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36779348/

            https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/ATV.0000000000000164

            https://www.acc.org/Latest-in-Cardiology/Clinical-Trials/201...

            https://www.acc.org/Latest-in-Cardiology/Clinical-Trials/201...

            • By lateforwork 2025-11-0918:201 reply

              Memory loss and confusion have been reported with statin use. The FDA makes note of this here:

              https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-d...

              FDA requires statins to have warnings about potential memory issues.

              There are risks associated with extremely low cholesterol: https://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/cholesterol-too...

              The human body creates cholesterol because it is essential for several vital biological functions. Cholesterol is a key structural component of cell membranes, providing rigidity and fluidity necessary for cellular function.

              • By cthalupa 2025-11-1010:481 reply

                > Memory loss and confusion have been reported with statin use.

                People reporting things doesn't mean much, because as your own original link mentions, people tend to overreport stuff when they are going to the doctor already for other things. What do actual studies that have controls show? We have human RCTs here that have looked at this very thing - and found no evidence of it.

                A random article on webmd also says very little when it contradicts the data we have from human RCTs and provides no sources. The trials I linked specifically looked at the common concerns that people have raised as being possibly related to low cholesterol - and didn't find them.

                No one is saying that cholesterol isn't essential - your brain literally won't work without it, among many other things. But there is a difference between serum cholesterol levels and its use in in your body. You do not need high serum LDL-C levels for your body to create cholesterol where it needs it.

                Those studies I linked quite specifically check for these concerns on people with way lower LDL-C from PKCS9 inhibitors than even combo therapy of statins and ezetimibe will get most people.

                • By lateforwork 2025-11-1014:311 reply

                  You can do a "study" to prove anything you want. And study outcomes often do vary depending on who is paying for it. The FDA is a neutral party. I recommend prioritizing the FDA warnings over "studies".

                  • By cthalupa 2025-11-1116:55

                    The FDA errs on the side of placing more warnings rather than fewer. They'd rather have false positives than false negatives. The warning is also clear that there is not a definitive causal link.

                    If you want to trust individual anecdotes over RCTs while scare quoting the primary way we advance science in these fields, be my guest.

    • By snthpy 2025-11-099:12

      I'm a big statin sceptic so just putting that up front.

      I think things haven't changed because most people underestimate how slow institutional scale change is. There is a reason why HR departments and consultants have Change Management experts. The inertia is huge. Young people don't appreciate this because they thrive on new ideas. Old folks don't and will subconsciously push back, like a form of institutional homeostasis.

      Also, while I believe your heart attack stats are correct, I'm more interested in all cause mortality. I believe there statins are a net negative.

    • By liveoneggs 2025-11-0820:021 reply

      Statins also raise your blood sugar and lower your GLP-1, increasing your risk of diabetes?

      They also tend to be continued well into old age (off label) despite increasing fall risk, which is way more dangerous to an 80 year old.

      • By cthalupa 2025-11-097:331 reply

        A single study showed a single statin reducing GLP-1 levels and ascribed it to gut microbiome changes that could be totally resolved with UDCA supplementation.

        If this even ends up being reproduced it at most says there is an easy fix for people taking atorvostatin and that it might be a concern with other statins, but this should be treated with the same health skepticism of any other single study finding.

        Not all statins raise blood sugar either - pitavastatin usually shows an improvement in insulin sensitivity.

        • By liveoneggs 2025-11-0913:202 reply

          How many doctors are cycling through all the statin classes to find the least-bad option for each patient?

          (I'll rant about one guy I know.. was any of this related to statin over perscribing? who can know)

          Now that we have your LDL under management isn't it easier to just add metformin and gabapentin into the mix? I mean what are the chances you're not also put on a calcium blocker too?

          Now you've got brain fog and sleepiness? weird! we have some modafinil for that but now that you're developing early-stage dementia know that it's progressive.

          • By cthalupa 2025-11-1011:01

            If you go and tell your doctor you're having trouble with a statin, they should have you try a new one, yeah. Some might need to get clued in on pitavastatin, as it only recently went generic and insurance companies really didn't want to approve it before this due to the cost and wide field of generic statins, but it tends to have one of the best profiles when it comes to side effects.

            The PKCS9 inhibitor monoclonal antibodies are an option for most people if they show intolerance to multiple statins - insurance will usually relent at that point.

            If your doctor isn't willing to work with you to find the medication that works best for you, then find a new doctor.

          • By array_key_first 2025-11-142:40

            If you have metabolic syndrome (heart disease, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, liver disease etc) then yes, you will take many different drugs. Because these are all complex conditions that must be managed, and that will lower your quality of life and raise your mortality.

            It sometimes seems like if you get one, you get the others. That's because all these diseases feed into each other.

    • By fcpk 2025-11-0820:39

      one better simple indicator than large panels, if you can't get access to them or don't have them is simply your triglycerides/hdl ratio. aim to be under 2 if using mg/dl and under 0.87 if using mmol/L. it's one of the strongest correlated indicators of cardiovascular disease. way better than any classic cholesterol ratios.

    • By nradov 2025-11-092:09

      Statins can be effective for many patients (and there are multiple different statins with varying effects) but there are also alternative or additional drugs such as Leqvio (inclisiran) and Repatha (evolocumab). Patients should do their research and talk to their doctors. It might take some trial and error to figure out what works best.

    • By RiverStone 2025-11-0823:52

      5mg daily Crestor (a very small dose) cut my ApoB in half from ~130 mg/dL to 61. I’ve had no negative side effects.

    • By matthewdgreen 2025-11-091:44

      The general advice is that the scans are only useful sometimes. That is, they can show a problem. But a clear scan doesn’t mean you’re fine. So don’t base anything on a clean scan, be proactive with all the rest of it. My two cents, by the way: Repatha is pretty amazing.

    • By martin82 2025-11-098:071 reply

      There is no reason take statins, ever. They will destroy your muscles, then cause diabetes and thus indirectly kill you. They will prevent a heart attack by... four days.

      If biomarkers are elevated, the question must always be, "why is this elevated", and "is there a natural change in habit and diet that can reverse this elevation".

      Artifically lowering the marker with a drug is like pasting duct tape on a leaking pipe - the leak is still there and it will likely quietly get worse over time and then eventually kill you anyways.

      I find it unbelievable that our society swallows any drug without second thought. You body produces cholesterol on purpose. There must be reason why it produces it. "Ah well, who cares, let's just throw in a wrench and make it stop producing the cholesterol" and hope for the best...

      • By cthalupa 2025-11-098:281 reply

        Arguing against nonsense like this gets so exhausting.

        Statins do not destroy your muscles. Newer statins make this already exceedingly rare side effect even rarer, but let's look at them as a general class:

        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36049498/

        Blinded RCT/Meta-analysis shows about 11 complaints per 1k patient years, with 90% of them not actually being due to the statin. But because people act like they're common, they mistakenly believe it was the statin, which just reinforces this idea. And that's for muscle pain.

        https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/atv.0000000000000073

        https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/article-abstract/26/5/512/59...

        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15572716/

        For actual significant muscle injury? Even lower. 1 or less per 10,000 patient years.

        Effectively, you might get one muscle ache per year per 100 people and at most a 1 in 10,000 chance of serious myotoxicity.

        As for diabetes, rosuvstatin usually has a neutral to positive impact on insulin sensitivity, and pitvastatin almost always has a positive impact. Some statins do have negative impact, but it's not universal.

        It's not like duct tape on a leaking pipe - it's like removing items in a pipe that damage the pipe walls. Yeah, ideally they're not in the pipe to begin with, but removing them is better than letting them stay, and diet and exercise only do so much to remove said items.

        Your body can synthesize LDL de novo in the organs that use it, and one of the heaviest users, the brain, can't get cholesterol out of your diet/serum levels at all - LDL cannot pass the blood brain barrier.

        There are people with genetic mutations that mean they don't produce LDL, or at least not at high levels - their increased longevity and incredibly rare incidents of ASCVD is what drove the creation of PKCS9 inhibitors.

        Statins also lower LDL-C levels - they don't make your body stop producing cholesterol in general, or even LDL-C. Even if your body couldn't make it on-demand where needed, statins aren't going to drop your serum levels to 0.

        • By calf 2025-11-1015:53

          I feel like statins are harder to accept than vaccines. With vaccines we can say it is just training our existing immune system to recognize and fight something. So how would you straightforwardly explain statins to a scientifically literate adult so they can make an informed decision. But part of that means honestly acknowledging whatever scientific unknowns and uncertainties there are in this area of human biology.

    • By hermanzegerman 2025-11-0821:311 reply

      > When I see that it is widely accepted that ApoB is better to measure than LDL-C, but the industry continues to measure LDL-C, but not ApoB, I wonder why.

      That's pretty simple to explain. No conspiracy.

      LDL-C is much much cheaper to measure. ApoB costs 36x times as much, so Insurance Companies don't like to pay for it

    • By gropo 2025-11-0913:35

      How about moderate cardio and more fats in your diet

    • By jimmydddd 2025-11-0819:382 reply

      My wife had high cholesterol numbers, so her doctor wanted to give her statins. She asked about a scan, he begrudgingly said well, I guess you could do that. Her scan showed 0 plaque.

      • By Buttons840 2025-11-0820:011 reply

        Plaque won't show as calcium until it has been in your arteries for decades and has calcified. It is a delayed indicator.

        For anyone under 40, it's expected to have zero calcium. Even a measure of 1 or 2 when you're below 40 would be a bad sign.

        • By Tempest1981 2025-11-092:202 reply

          Is there any way to get rid of the calcification? Experimental techniques?

          • By zbentley 2025-11-0912:39

            Sure, surgery and several other risky and/or invasive treatments.

            Or you could take statins and prevent it from becoming an issue in the first place.

          • By rurban 2025-11-117:23

            Amlodipin

      • By cthalupa 2025-11-097:37

        Was it a CAC or CTA?

        It was almost certainly the former, and the former is is basically an indicator that the damage is already done.

        Soft plaque takes a long time to calcify. But soft plaque is the stuff that ruptures, and will clog up your arteries just as much.

        Statins are best used as a preventative measure - once the plaque is there it's difficult to regress it even while soft, and as far as we know effectively impossible once it is calcified.

  • By Waterluvian 2025-11-0818:264 reply

    I’m sensing a potentially significant misallocation of resources. My mental model is that there’s a hypothetical quantification of not just your time and money, but your anxiety, attention bandwidth, mental energy, etc.

    I think, in some ways, the trick is being able to short circuit the entire journey represented by this website in favour of some form of, “I’m 40. I should be more mindful of heart disease. I should add a 30 min walk to my mornings.” And then move on with your life.

    I think many cultures, but especially American healthcare culture, foment a growing background noise of constant anxieties and stressors. Life is sufficiently complex but there’s always a peddler eager to throw you a new ball to juggle (and pay for).

    • By adammarples 2025-11-0819:372 reply

      I think the article makes a valid point: stop worrying about 90% of the other stuff and focus on the thing that will almost certainly kill you - heart disease - for which there are easy diagnostic and preventative measures. I think they're arguing for a better allocation of resources, if anything.

      • By ericmcer 2025-11-0821:134 reply

        Isn't the global population like 50% obese? What is your actual risk of dying from it if you are relatively in shape and in your 40s?

        • By sn9 2025-11-0823:551 reply

          The most current and up-to-date risk calculator for heart disease risk is the PREVENT score.

          https://professional.heart.org/en/guidelines-and-statements/...

          • By exhilaration 2025-11-093:201 reply

            Thanks for posting this. I was able to plug in all the required values from my last checkup and blood work. Even EGFR was there, I've never paid attention to that before.

            • By sn9 2025-11-1014:191 reply

              I learned about it on the Barbell Medicine podcast! They had an episode dedicated to it.

              Highly recommended to search their episodes for anything about health or fitness you've been curious about.

              • By exhilaration 2025-11-1214:47

                Nice, I just subscribed to their podcast. I'm an adherent to the Starting Strength / Mark Rippetoe school of thought but always looking to learn more.

        • By array_key_first 2025-11-142:44

          The bar for obesity is lower than a lot of people think. I have known many people who look good, have decent bodies, and are obese. Your fat distribution can be very misleading. Some people happen to hold fat very well.

        • By rootusrootus 2025-11-0821:59

          It depends. Overall, lowest all-cause death indexed on BMI seems to be around 27 plus or minus [0]. Interestingly, for all subjects (not just healthy non-smokers), BMI 30-32 isn't really associated with a dramatic increase in all cause mortality.

          Obviously life is more complicated than just one measure. I figure this is just another data point saying BMI is useful for population studies and not great for individual diagnosis.

          [0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10321632/

        • By Fire-Dragon-DoL 2025-11-0821:213 reply

          We don't know how to treat obesity 100% though

          • By loeg 2025-11-090:481 reply

            GLP-1s are remarkably effective.

            • By Fire-Dragon-DoL 2025-11-091:101 reply

              Absolutely true, but it seems there is a lot of reluctancy in prescribing them

              • By loeg 2025-11-0920:39

                I'm not sure that's true? Insurance is hesitant to cover their expense for less extreme cases, and they're very expensive. But I haven't heard of prescribing being a real bottleneck. They're not controlled substances and the side effect profile is pretty mild (other than price).

          • By xandrius 2025-11-0822:36

            Yep because the system around you wants you to consume to obesity.

          • By ponector 2025-11-090:142 reply

            Are you joking? We do know how to treat eating disorders. Same as we know how to treat opioid addiction or alcoholism.

            • By Fire-Dragon-DoL 2025-11-090:39

              No I'm not, as far as I'm aware "diet" is one of the "drugs" with highest failure rate ever

            • By array_key_first 2025-11-142:44

              Yes, and that's why we have eliminated addiction.

      • By loeg 2025-11-090:48

        Heart disease is a big one, but so is cancer.

    • By AstroBen 2025-11-0819:511 reply

      I think people should be mindful of it since they were 18 - it's something that progresses over decades. You can have a lot bigger impact making changes when you're young rather than at 40

      But yeah I agree with your message. Focus on the big impact macro level things. Hyper-optimizing it is a waste of energy

      • By Fire-Dragon-DoL 2025-11-0821:201 reply

        If I'm not wrong, it takes 20 years to revert the damage of smoking. I don't think you need to care at 18, but the effects will be seen over the course of 20 years

        • By sn9 2025-11-0823:531 reply

          Lots of the damage done can't be undone when it comes to heart diseaese.

          Notably risk goes up with the time spent with bad numbers, so the most leverage you have on affecting your lifetime risk is caring as early as possible.

          It's an area under the curve situation. Waiting until you start experiencing symptoms is putting a band-aid on an open wound compared to avoiding injury at all by focusing on high impact habits related to diet and exercise.

          Focus on adopting the following habits as early as possible: https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/where-should-my-priorit...

          • By GrzegorzWidla 2025-11-1619:11

            The article is fantastic with only one caveat. Recommending 1.6 g of protein per kg of body weight to people who are only meeting, not exceeding, physical activity recommendations is foolish. 1.6 if amount that one needs to build maximum muscle mass in the shortest possible time. Leading protein intake researchers (think people like Stu Philips) state that that recommendation is excessive for most people and he instead suggests 1.2 g for nearly everyone.

    • By ericmcer 2025-11-0821:123 reply

      Seriously there is too much shit to worry about to micro manage each facet, unless your like a Bryan Johnson billionaire with a staff.

      Beyond just heart disease & cancer taking you out entirely its: my eyesight is going, my hearing, every joint in my body could fail, my brain is slowing, etc.

      There is just way too much shit to do anything other than be like: sleep, exercise, eat better and don't drink too much.

      • By henry2023 2025-11-0823:351 reply

        And even him doesn’t know what’s working and what’s making things worse. He claims to have really good biomarkers but that’s when cherry-picking numbers from studies made in a range of more than two years (!!).

        You’ll never see a published set of tests from him. What you’ll see is ads to buy his supplements.

      • By GrzegorzWidla 2025-11-1619:17

        There are roughly 5 areas of which combined cover 80+% of things you can control.

        1. Exercise (aerobic and strength, doesn’t have to be much but more is better). 2. Diet (mostly whole foods, mostly plants, low saturated fat). 3. Prevention (regular check ups and following doctor’s advice). 4. Meaning / purpose (either being passionate about your job or having such hobbies outside of it). 5. Friends and community.

        This isn’t too much. By many that’s the bare minimum for having a satisfactory life.

      • By koliber 2025-11-1011:38

        > Beyond just heart disease & cancer taking you out entirely its: my eyesight is going, my hearing, every joint in my body could fail, my brain is slowing, etc.

        Absolutely right. You can’t fix everything. But if you can only dedicate time, money, and attention to one thing, cardio health is probably highest impact for most people. This article makes that case. Also it makes the case that there are a few things that will have an outsized positive effect on cardio health and we’d be wise to focus on them.

    • By andrewmcwatters 2025-11-093:45

      [dead]

  • By carbocation 2025-11-0817:245 reply

        Key Takeaway: Get a CT or CTA scan, and if you can afford it go for the CTA with Cleerly.
    
    There is a reason that we don't recommend getting imaging for everyone, and that reason is uncertainty about the benefit vs the risks (cost, incidentalomas, radiation, etc, all generally minor). Most guidance recommends calcium scoring for people with intermediate risk who prefer to avoid taking statins. This is not a normative statement that is meant to last the test of time: it may well be the case that these tests are valuable for a broader population, but the data haven't really caught up to this viewpoint yet.

    • By safety1st 2025-11-0817:409 reply

      Right.

      Hang on a second.

      This guy is making a big big claim.

      The central point of his article is that he went to a doctor who followed the guidelines, tested him and found he wasn't at risk for heart disease.

      But then he went to another, very expensive concierge doctor, who did special extra tests, and discovered that he was likely to develop heart disease and have a heart attack.

      Therefore he is arguing that THE STANDARD GUIDELINES ARE WRONG AND EVEN IF YOU DO EVERYTHING RIGHT AND YOUR DOCTOR CONFIRMS IT YOU MAY BE LIKELY TO DIE OF HEART DISEASE ANYWAY, SO ONLY THE SPECIAL EXTRA TESTS CAN REVEAL THE TRUTH.

      I want a second opinion from a doctor. Is this true? Is this for real? Because it smells funny.

      • By Apes 2025-11-0817:572 reply

        I strongly suspect the truth is both are "right", but they're both optimized answers to slightly different problems.

        Mainstream medicine is hyper optimized for the most common 80% of cases. At a glance it makes sense: optimize for the common case. Theres some flaws in this logic though - the most common 80% also conveniently overlaps heavily with the easiest 80%. If most of the problems in that 80% solve themselves, then what actual value is provided by a medical system hyper focused on solving non-problems? The real value from the medical system isnt telling people "it's probably just a flu, let's just give it a few days and see" it's providing a diagnosis for a difficult to identify condition.

        So if your question is "how do we maximize value and profit in aggregate for providing medical care to large groups of people", mainstream medicine is maybe a good answer.

        But if your question is "how do we provide the best care to individual patients" then mainstream medicine has significant problems.

        • By fwip 2025-11-0818:491 reply

          Part of providing good care is not burdening the patient with tests or treatments that are very unlikely to yield benefit. Put another way, the mission of healthcare is not "health at any cost."

          • By embedding-shape 2025-11-0820:301 reply

            The mission of healthcare in the eyes of those who provide it, isn't "health at any cost".

            For the people on the other side, "health at any cost" is pretty much the goal, usually limited by the "cost" side of things, especially in the parts of the world where they haven't yet figured out the whole "healthcare for the public" thing.

            • By fwip 2025-11-0915:32

              Cost here doesn't just include financial cost, but also time. As an extreme example, you could surely catch diseases earlier by visiting a doctor for an hour or two every day - getting tests for all sorts of things you might have conceivably developed. But that would make your life worse, and so most people wouldn't do that even if it was free.

        • By 6510 2025-11-099:25

          The actual question should be "how do we have the fewest patients"

      • By cthalupa 2025-11-097:451 reply

        The National Lipid Association and American Heart Association have both been advocating that lower cholesterol numbers are better, e.g. https://www.lipidjournal.com/article/S1933-2874(25)00317-4/f...

        Research science in this area has been in agreement for a long time now that ApoB is a more informative indicator than just LDL-C, because there are a variety of different atherogenic particles, not all LDL particles are created the same, etc.

        His ApoB numbers are quite readily and apparently out of range. Hell, even his LDL is out of range for the two largest lab providers in the US - Labcorp and Quest both have <100 for their reference range. But the science shows that plaque progression is still generally occurring at levels above 70 LDL-C even with low Lp(a) and other atherogenic particles - the reference ranges are likely to get moved lower and lower as practice catches up with research.

        His numbers are well within the range of concern based on pretty universal consensus across the research in this area over the past couple of decades. Preventative cardiologists and lipidologists would almost certainly agree with this concierge doctor.

        • By safety1st 2025-11-106:551 reply

          Thanks for the astute and informed comment. So re-reading that portion of the article, it seems to me the answer to my question is not that any general or consensus guidelines are wrong, but that a company called Forward Health is doing lipid panels and providing an incorrect interpretation of the results.

          OP's LDL-C was 116 and this is on the very top end of what Forward Health's report says is OK, their report is wrong, this number is bad.

          All the stuff about needing to measure ApoB, needing a high end concierge doctor, and the very long article about measuring 10-20 different numbers and doing more exercise than the guidelines and being at risk of heart attack if you don't do amounts of exercise that the author consider unreasonable etc., some of this may have value, but this all seems to be a lot of very lengthy personal opinion by the techbro author of the post. The key insight is simply that your LDL-C becomes a cause for concern over 100, perhaps even over 70, and he was not as healthy as some tech company told him he was. No surprise there, I will talk to actual doctors instead of using services from "tech forward" startups any day of the week.

          • By cthalupa 2025-11-1010:531 reply

            I would agree that this article overstates a lot of things.

            ApoB is still a reasonable thing to check though, at least once - Lp(a) is the primary cause of atherogenic particle counts being high when LDL-C isn't the culprit, and it's usually a genetic factor. Having a high Lp(a) will bounce your ApoB up and give you a better understanding of the total atherogenic particle load. You could have fine LDL-C or Lp(a) on their own but the total amount could be enough to be worrisome.

            Lp(a) being problematic is definitely less common than it being more or less fine, but it's certainly not incredibly rare, either.

            • By safety1st 2025-11-116:28

              Really great context, thanks!

      • By carbocation 2025-11-0817:56

        The claim on an individual level is not objectionable to me. The question is that if we extrapolate it out to the population and actually take this action for everyone, do we make people better off? This is what clinical trials (or at least large observational studies) try to achieve. Right now, it is not clear.

      • By malfist 2025-11-0817:552 reply

        His evidence is also kinda weak. And appeal to authority largely about someone who he's paying to tell him he has health problems. The incentives aren't aligned.

        I also disagree that the 50the percentile is the breakpoint between healthy and unhealthy. There's a lot more to deciding those ranges beside "well half of the population has better numbers"

        • By kelipso 2025-11-0818:081 reply

          ApoB is a better indicator of heart problems and his ApoB was bad, unlike his LDL-C. ApoB is not some imaginary thing made up by a quack doctor.

          • By cthalupa 2025-11-097:461 reply

            Even his LDL-C is bad. 116/119 are both out of range by most lab testing standards and the top end of range already allows for plaque deposition.

            • By kelipso 2025-11-1016:071 reply

              That LDL-C is considered normal, what are you talking about. 160 is when doctors start being concerned.

        • By wrs 2025-11-0819:542 reply

          You may have missed the stat that 30% of the population that’s the median of will die of heart disease. You don’t want to be at the median.

          • By rgmerk 2025-11-0821:431 reply

            100% of the population will die of something.

            If I die at 90 of a heart attack havjng maintained the ability to live independently up until then, I’d take that as a massive win compared to my relatives suffering through a decade of me with worsening dementia.

            • By ac29 2025-11-0920:59

              Cardiovascular diseases are huge risk factors for dementia, so if your goal is to avoid dementia you should try to have a healthy cardiovascular system.

          • By malfist 2025-11-0820:54

            If health science was as simple as health outcomes are proportional to one or two measurement percentiles, sure. But that's hardly true. Health is a lot more complex than that and the disease risk cannot be quantified by a small number of parameters

      • By bsder 2025-11-097:54

        The plural of anecdote is not data.

        Maybe he got missed--let's concede that. What about the other 10 or 100 or 1000 or subjected themselves to tests and didn't find anything? Where are their stories?

        If you have enough people, the tests, themselves are eventually going to harm somebody.

        For example, certain scans require contrasts like gadolinium that bioaccumulates. That's not a big deal if we only pump it into people 2 or 3 times in their lives when something in their body is about to explode. It's a lot bigger deal if we're doing that to them every year.

      • By antonvs 2025-11-093:50

        We went through this with Oprah in 2007. She did a show about her CT scan and how wonderful it was.

        Here's what the New York Times had to say about it the following year: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/business/29scan.html

        The bottom line is these tests aren't some sort of one-size-fits-all panacea, and nor can they perfectly predict the future. In fact Oprah herself backtracked on it, via an article by Dr. Oz in her magazine in 2011: https://www.oprah.com/health/are-x-rays-and-ct-scans-safe-ra...

        A good rule of thumb is don't take medical advice from Oprah or Dr. Oz. But in the case of the latter article, he wasn't wrong.

      • By Aurornis 2025-11-0818:10

        > But then he went to another, very expensive concierge doctor, who did special extra tests, and discovered that he was likely to develop heart disease and have a heart attack.

        It’s scarily common in medicine for doctors to start specializing in diagnosing certain conditions with non-traditional testing, which leads them to abnormally high diagnosis rates.

        It happens in every hot topic diagnosis:

        When sleep apnea was trending, a doctor in my area opened her own sleep lab that would diagnose nearly everyone who attended with apnea. Patients who were apnea negative at standard labs would go there and be diagnosed as having apnea every time. Some patients liked this because they became convinced they had apnea and frustrated that their traditional labs kept coming back negative, so they could go here and get a positive diagnosis. Every time.

        In the world of Internet Lyme disease there’s a belief that a lot of people have hidden Lyme infections that don’t appear on the gold standard lab tests. Several labs have introduced “alternate” tests which come back positive for most people. You can look up doctors on the internet who will use these labs (cash pay, of course) and you’re almost guaranteed to get a positive result. If you don’t get a positive result the first time, the advice is to do it again because it might come back positive the second time. Anyone who goes to these doctors or uses this lab company is basically guaranteed a positive result.

        MCAS is a hot topic on TikTok where influencers will tell you it explains everything wrong with you. You can find a self-described MCAS physician (not an actual specialist) in online directories who will use non-standard tests on you that always come back positive. Actual MCAS specialists won’t even take your referral from these doctors because they’re overwhelmed with false cases coming from the few doctors capitalizing on a TikTok trend.

        The same thing is starting to happen with CVD risks. It’s trendy to specialize in concierge medicine where the doctor will run dozens of obscure biomarkers and then “discover” that one of them is high (potentially according to their own definition of too high). Now this doctor has saved your life in a way that normal doctors failed you, so you recommend the doctor to all of your friends and family. Instant flywheel for new clients.

        I don’t know where this author’s doctor fits into this, but it’s good to be skeptical of doctors who claim to be able to find conditions that other doctors are unable to see. If the only result is someone eating healthier and exercising more then the consequences aren’t so bad, but some of these cases can turn obsessive where the patient starts self-medicating in ways that might be net negative because they think they need to treat this hard to diagnose condition that only they and their chosen doctor understand.

      • By rasse 2025-11-0818:59

        It's important to note that there's geographic variability in guidelines. Also, the article doesn't give enough information about the author's other risk factors. For a similar patient (based on the initial lab results), treated by a doctor adhering to the European guidelines, at least the following items would have been considered:

        - Lipid lowering drugs

        - ApoB testing

        - Coronary CT (if the pre-test likelihood of obstructive coronary artery disease was estimated to be > 5%)

        - Diabetes tests

        - Kidney tests

      • By sixtyj 2025-11-0817:571 reply

        If there are two contradictory conclusions you should ask for the third one, independent on the previous ones.

        • By Apes 2025-11-0818:102 reply

          The year is 1846, and a doctor has a radical new idea: doctors should wash their hands between performing autopsies and delivering babies!

          You're not sure of whether this is a good idea or not, so you ask various physicians, and the consensus is unanimous: the very suggestion is offensive, do you think doctors are unclean?

          A clear conclusion has been achieved.

          • By paxys 2025-11-0912:28

            Are you implying that every new, unproven idea is a good one?

          • By sixtyj 2025-11-0818:25

            You’re right. My comment doesn’t make sense.

    • By IshKebab 2025-11-0822:38

      That seems like a super dumb reason to me. "We don't look because we might misinterpret the results"?? Fix the interpretation then!

      It's crazy that we haven't optimised MRI scans so that they can be routine.

    • By doganugurlu 2025-11-097:001 reply

      Not sure I follow or maybe you skipped typing a word.

      You listed the risks and concluded “all generally minor.” The benefit is absolutely nonzero. So, what’s the hold up?

      And how have the data not caught up? People outside the US are getting the CT scans, while US doctors prefer to lick their finger to guess the weather.

      My wife’s last interaction with a doctor: patient presents with back and chest pain accompanied by occasional shortness of breath at the age of 39, doctor reluctantly asks for a EKG - which takes 5-10 minutes and is done in the next room, right away and covered by insurance with a small copay - and has the gall to be surprised when EKG showed subtle abnormalities. If she hadn’t advocated for herself, as the OP argues, doctor would just skip the EKG.

      This experience left me thinking maybe doctors are discouraged from asking for imaging and guidelines are there to protect their criminally negligent behavior. I have no proof or even proxy data for the claim about doctors being discouraged from asking for imaging. But it is objectively criminally negligent to not ask for imaging in a case like this.

      • By moralestapia 2025-11-0911:35

        "Smaht" people continuously parrot things they read elsewhere, usually in a contrarian way, to assert themselves in a futile and shallow way.

        There is absolutely nothing wrong with getting one CT at a specific point in your life to right a disease which, as TFA states, has a 25% incidence rate.

        The smaht ones will now point me to that study of 1-5% of cancers being linked to CT scans. Yeah, sure, but those are not from people who got one-two in their lives.

    • By jbritton 2025-11-0818:07

      A CIMT scan is another option. It uses ultrasound to measure carotid artery wall thickness.

HackerNews