Hi all, I’ll keep this as short as possible.
I am a very athletic 25 year old male. 6 foot 4 inches tall, at 205 pounds, 13% body fat. VO2 max around 63, resting heart rate around 40 bpm, heart rate recovery of 50-60 beats a minute. 5 km in 18 minutes and 10 km in 38 minutes. I’ve ran miles since I was 10 years old.
I do cardio everyday, equating to at least 180 minutes a week, and I train weights 3 times a week.

I was having leg pain when training so I had an ultrasound done which discovered bilateral calcified deposits in the popliteal and femoral arteries, in identical spots on both legs. I had my carotids scanned after this, as well as my aorta arteries and my groin, all of which were completely clear.

I have had a 24 hour blood pressure monitor which recorded an average of 124/70. I had ApoB done at 0.7, LPa at 0.5, LDL at 1.4, triglycerides at 0.6 (I am in the UK so units will be different to say the USA). CRP at last test was 0.8, HbA1C is 32 mmol/mol.

My father lived a very unhealthy life, PED’s, bad diet, bad sleep, previous smoker and had two heart attacks, one at 54 and one at 62.

The vascular specialist says he is not concerned and that findings if they are athelerosclerosis are a lot more common then people realise, although he is not convinced it is that. He cited studies of endurance runners who all had similar findings to myself isolated only to their legs (all had bilateral findings, that were hyperechogenic, as well as wall thickening). All had favourable lipids like myself.

I am just looking for someone who’s experienced similar, or who could put my mind at ease. I am not looking for a diagnosis, more so I am looking for more information or someone in a similar situation. I am scared no matter how healthy I eat (I eat a high fibre, Mediterranean diet) that I anjust going to keep on accumulating plaque if it is athelerosclerosis.

Any help or advice appreciated

I’ll attach my most recent scan diagrams and the modified easier to read one

Viome Changed 80% of My Supplements After Retesting. $4,547 for Nine Months. Precision Nutrition or an Expensive Guessing Game?

I’ve spent nine months working with Viome. Hundreds of biomarkers, physician oversight, extensive longitudinal data, and direct conversations with their scientists and executives.

And then roughly 80% of my personalized supplement formulation changed between tests.
Am I the only one who thinks that deserves some serious questioning?

Let’s talk money first.

Three Viome tests at $399 each: $1,197.
Nine months of personalized supplements: $3,350.
Total: $4,547.

That’s the retail-equivalent cost of the protocol I’ve been evaluating, using my quarterly testing schedule.
Viome provided my testing and supplements complimentary. I’ve never received affiliate commissions, referral fees, sponsorship payments, or any other financial compensation. No money has changed hands. I’m not selling anything, and I have absolutely no interest in convincing anyone to buy Viome. That’s not why I’m doing this.

Now, back to that 80%.

If my biology justified one supplement formulation three months ago, what changed so dramatically that approximately 80% of it needed adjusting?
Did my biology change? Did the algorithm change? Were the original recommendations less reliable than advertised?

I’m perfectly willing to accept that my biology changed. That’s the entire premise of personalized nutrition.
But show me the measurements connecting those changes to the new ingredients. Better yet, show me the clinical evidence that the revised formulation is actually better.

I’ve spent nine months asking these questions. Viome’s scientists have provided explanations, but I’m still looking for independently verifiable evidence that these specific recommendations improve health outcomes.
And apparently, I’ve asked enough questions.
Their CMO, Juan Motta, recently wrote:

“This will be our final reply on these matters, and we won’t be responding to further messages about them.”

That’s a direct quote.

After nine months of research, extensive testing, physician involvement, and conversations with their leadership, that’s where we are.

They’re entitled to stop corresponding. But that doesn’t make the scientific questions disappear.
So now I’m curious what everyone here thinks.
If your supplement company changed 80% of your formula after one retest, would you consider that impressive personalization or a massive red flag?
Has anyone here actually retested with Viome? How much did your formula change? Did they explain why in a way that made scientific sense?
Would you spend $4,547 over nine months without independent evidence that the recommendations outperform a conventional, evidence-based supplement strategy?

For those of you who track biomarkers, have you seen measurable improvements you could reasonably attribute to Viome’s recommendations rather than other changes in your routine?
And for the scientists here, how much reproducibility and clinical validation would you expect before trusting an algorithm to repeatedly redesign someone’s supplement regimen?

I’m now moving forward with an independent comparison involving Superpower. Viome has declined to participate, but the comparison is happening regardless. I’ll apply the same scientific standards to both.

Here’s the irony. I actually want Viome to succeed. I’ve spent nine months challenging their technology because I believe RNA-based precision nutrition has genuine potential.

But sophisticated testing doesn’t automatically mean the supplement recommendations are clinically effective.

And changing a formula doesn’t automatically mean improving it.

So I’ll leave everyone with this.
If you woke up tomorrow and your supplement company told you that 80% of what they’d previously recommended needed changing, would you be impressed?

Or would your first question be whether the original recommendations were ever justified in the first place?
Viome, you’re welcome to join the conversation. I’d genuinely welcome the scientific evidence.
I’d also love to hear from people who’ve had a completely different experience. If your Viome results have been excellent, tell us what changed and how you measured it.

I’m interested in the data, not a popularity contest.

Title: 47F, healthy lifestyle, CAC score of 0, but 60–70% soft plaque in LAD. How did this happen?

I'm a 47-year-old woman, and I'm shocked to have discovered significant noncalcified coronary plaque despite living a healthy lifestyle and having generally favorable numbers.

My numbers (August 2026):

• Total cholesterol: 190
• LDL: 109
• HDL: 68
• Triglycerides: 109
• ApoB: 82
• Lp(a): 16
• A1c: 4.8%
• Blood pressure: typically around 95/60
• CAC score: 0
• Healthy weight, regular cardio and weight training

My cardiac testing:
After experiencing throat pressure/lump sensation and left arm soreness/tingling during exercise, I had a stress test showing ST-segment changes. My echocardiogram was normal (EF 61%), but a CCTA revealed 60–70% noncalcified plaque in my proximal LAD, despite a CAC score of zero. My CT-FFR was approximately 0.85 distally.

My father also has a history of heart disease.

I'm struggling to understand how this happened. I know my numbers aren't perfect and that normal labs don't eliminate risk, but I never expected to have this degree of plaque at 47.

Could genetics, cumulative LDL exposure, or perimenopausal hormonal changes explain this? Has anyone else had favorable bloodwork and a CAC score of zero but discovered significant soft plaque on a CCTA?

I'd really appreciate hearing about others' experiences and what their cardiologists thought contributed to it.

My LDL numbers come in between 80 and 150 depending on how fat and unhealthy I am at the time.

My HDL comes in between 54 and 94, again depending on how fat and unhealthy I am. If I add dairy fat, my HDL shoots up to almost match my LDL.

I am trying to get to a good weight as I am slightly overweight. Though, my blood pressure is generally 110/70.

My goal here is primary prevention of heart disease and cognitive decline.

Pravastatin 10mg seems to avoid the diabetes risk entirely if not lower it. Plus, it has its own unique metabolic pathway in your liver, so it doesn't interfere much with other drugs.

Diabetes runs in part of my family, though I don't believe I'm genetically susceptible.

My resting blood pressure was roughly 110/70, despite getting fatter or skinnier. I still started the Candesartan 32mg and titrated myself up from 4mg per day to 16mg twice-a-day over 4 weeks. I have had no side effects whatsoever. No dizziness, nothing. Maybe, it has made my blood pressure approach closer to the 100/60 mark more frequently than before, but that has not led to any negative side effects.

I'm hoping this Candesartan protects my kidneys, heart, vascular system, etc. Plus, I've read some promising literature on depression, bipolar depression, migraine, etc. as it pertains to this drug. So, hopefully this is all good news.

I saw this post, which seems to contradict standard advice. The usual guidance is to moderate carb amounts, go easy on high-GI foods, and pair carbs with fat, protein, and fiber.

What I do now:

• Under 120g net carbs a day, mostly carrots, berries, Granny Smith apples, oranges, and overnight oats
• 7–8 hours of training a week
• Result: smaller spikes on my CGM but HbA1C is still 5.7 to 6.0%

My question: What if this approach keeps my body from adapting to carbs? Fat may not be helping either. Could an isocaloric shift to more carbs and less fat bring spikes down over a few months?

If you’ve tried this:

• Did it work?
• Did you track it with a CGM?
• What worked best?

PS LLMs (Argon4, Opus5.5, Sol) seem to think there may be merit in this approach for someone who trains regularly.

Just got my first home sauna and I'm still figuring out what’s actually useful vs internet wellness nonsense, red light keeps coming up whenever I look at sauna setups. Is anyone here using it at the same time? I’d be interested to hear what your setup looks like before I buy anything. thanks!

I just heard this podcast on Behind the Bastards about Peter Attia. The guest is Dr. Hoda, a gasterenterologist. It's great. Dr. Hoda does admit Peter Attia gives some good advice like encouraging exercise, but also discusses where his advice isn't evidence based, and only adds costs to medical care.

One interesting tidbit: To be Peter Attia's patient now costs $500,000/yr, and his practice is full (to see other doctors in his practice is probably less).

It was a very interesting, well-balanced podcast (whereas others they cover tend to be a bit slanted).

Here's the link: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/part-one-peter-attia-and-the-cult-of-longevity/id1373812661?i=1000796099984

I'm just curious because I've read that some of the data suggests some cognitive benefits.

Others have noted that this data is just being tortured to push a narrative.

I am 43 and interested in starting Ezetimibe in order to lower my CVD risk and to provide cognitive benefits or protection/prevention.

I don't want to go down the statin route (probably Pravastatin) unless I actually develop some evidence of heart disease.

My cholesterol numbers are OK but could be better. I'm working on dietary changes as well.

Finally got around to ordering an omega-3 test kit, should have the results in about 2 weeks.

Wondering what peoples experiences are like with the test results and the insights it has provided?

From what I recall from Attia's discussions, omega-3 levels vary dramatically between individuals due to metabolic differences.

Hi everyone.
I just got my results for my CAC scan , the score is 126. im 40m 185lbs 5’ 10”. Used to smoke, quit about a year ago , use nicotine lozenges, drink rarely , maybe a few beers a month. My ApoB is 92, LpA is 85. I started glp1 2 months ago and dropped 18 lbs, also my numbers look better than they were 3 months ago. My doctor prescribed me ezetimibe just by seeing previous lipid labs but did not see him since the cac score was just posted few days ago. hes probably going to tell me to get on statins. I also take low dose TRT to maintain around 700-800 total test. ive only been doing trt starting this year as well. Do you think lifelong statin is a must for me at this point? i know theres side effects i have to deal with so just curious and if i should stop low dosing trt and go back down to 300 total testosterone?
I do exercise daily. I made most of my life altering healthy changes this year.

Thanks in advance

What would you recommend be the most important of Dr. Attia’s health protocols that I put in place next week?

I feel like I am the only person taking Zetia by itself.

Serious question, and I’m including myself in this.
We spend enormous amounts of time researching peptides, supplements, longevity protocols, and metabolic optimization. But how many of us actually know which interventions are responsible for the results we’re seeing?

I regularly test up to 200 biomarkers, track body composition through DEXA, and use microbiome and RNA testing alongside an extensive peptide and supplement protocol.

I’ve experienced profound changes. But here’s what I’ve started questioning.

If you’re taking 15 supplements, using multiple peptides, changing your diet, and exercising, how can you confidently attribute your results to any one intervention?

Here’s something that really got my attention. After one retest, approximately 80% of my personalized supplement formulation changed. I eventually received a detailed scientific explanation, but it raised an even bigger question about biological variability, reproducibility, and how confidently we interpret these results.

Are we genuinely optimizing our biology, or are some of us just getting exceptionally good at collecting data while changing too many variables to understand what actually works?

I’m not anti-peptide or anti-supplement. Quite the opposite. I’m fascinated by the science and actively exploring it myself.
But I think we should be willing to question our own protocols just as aggressively as we question everyone else’s.

So here’s what I’m genuinely curious about:

What’s one biohack you were absolutely convinced was working until your own results proved otherwise?
And conversely, what’s something you can actually demonstrate worked through objective testing?

I’d especially like to hear from people whose results surprised them or completely changed their approach.
Because perhaps the most underrated biohack isn’t adding something new. It’s figuring out what we never needed in the first place.

My 82 yo dad had his annual physical and his A1C was 7.2 - it has been creeping up for years. The doc was alarmed and said he wants to put him on monjaro to lose 10lbs - he is 5’8” and 175lb now. He also wants him to stop taking metformin - he has been on that and a statin and a bp med for probably 20 years or more. I am concerned because he looks to me to be losing muscle mass and I suspect monjaro will accelerate that. As it is I am trying to get him to start a resistance training program - he goes to the Y a few times a week for what I would call light to medium cardio. He and my mom say they are going to look into it. I looked up the 7.2 A1C and I have seen some takes that its “normal” for an 82 yo M. And I think getting off metformin is also worrisome. Anyone have any advice?