Archive for February, 2026

First up my score was good and puts me at the same risk level as an average under 30 years old. But half of all males my age have a similar score. With that said lets begin.

I recently had a CT coronary calcium score done to get an objective assessment of cardiovascular risk—beyond blood tests, family history, or population-based risk calculators.

This test detects calcified plaque in the coronary arteries. Not cholesterol in the blood. Not soft plaque estimates. Actual, measurable coronary atherosclerosis.

The Result

My coronary calcium score came back as:

• Agatston score: 0.9

• Location: a single microscopic fleck in the right coronary artery (RCA)

• Total calcified volume: 0.80 mm³

• Equivalent calcium mass: 0.31 mg

This sits in the lowest end of the “minimal identifiable calcification” range and is clinically close to zero, but not zero.

Risk Reclassification: The Key Point

Before imaging, my estimated 5-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk—using New Zealand PREDICT models—was approximately 6%.

Once the calcium score was incorporated, that risk was reclassified downward to ~3% over the next 5–7 years.

This is the intended role of calcium scoring: it refines statistical risk estimates using direct imaging evidence

How Common Is a Calcium Score of 0.9 at Age 57 (Male)? — Properly Stated

Context matters, so here is the accurate population framing.

For men aged 55–59 in large cohort studies:

• ~45–55% have a calcium score of 0

• ~20–30% have scores 1–10

• ~15–20% have scores 11–100

• ~10–15% have scores >100

A score of 0.9 therefore places me just above the median, within the lowest-risk half of men my age. It is favorable but not rare, and it should not be framed as exceptional.

Clinically, scores in the 0–1 range are treated very similarly in short- to mid-term risk prediction—but statistically, 0.9 is not the same as 0, and the distinction matters.

What a Score of 0.9 Does Not Mean

It does not mean:

• Zero lifetime risk

• Immunity from atherosclerosis

• That lifestyle factors no longer matter

What it does mean is that there is no meaningful calcified plaque burden at this point in time, and no imaging evidence of established coronary disease.

The report also estimates a coronary age under 30, based on international reference databases.

Statins: Optional, Not Mandatory

Because of the low calcium score, primary-prevention statin therapy is explicitly described as optional.

A conservative clinician could still argue for low-dose statins based on cholesterol levels or family history, but the scan itself does not mandate pharmacological intervention.

The recommended course if statins are not used is simple:

• Repeat calcium scoring in 5 years

• Monitor progression rather than assume risk

Why This Test Was Worth Doing

Blood markers fluctuate.
Risk calculators generalize.
Imaging shows reality.

Calcium scoring answers a direct question:

Is there measurable coronary artery disease right now?

In my case, the answer is minimal and clinically insignificant.

Final Thought

A calcium score of 0.9 is not a trophy and not a warning sign.
It’s a baseline measurement.

The objective now is straightforward:

• Prevent progression

• Re-image at the appropriate interval

• Let objective data—not assumptions—drive decisions

That’s what modern preventive cardiology is for.

I recently had a full-body DEXA scan done. Not for vanity. Not for a before-and-after Instagram post. I wanted hard numbers—objective data that cuts through guesswork and tells the truth about body composition, fat distribution, and muscle mass.

DEXA is often talked about in vague terms, so I want to document exactly what mine showed and how I’m interpreting it.

The Raw Numbers

At the time of the scan, my stats were:

• Height: 177 cm
• Weight: 104.7 kg
• Total body fat: 35.0%
• Fat mass: 35.3 kg
• Lean mass: 65.5 kg
• Relative Skeletal Muscle Index (RSMI): 10.40 kg/m²
• Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR): 1,776 kcal/day

This immediately tells an important story: I’m not under-muscled. My RSMI sits well above sarcopenia thresholds and is consistent with a strong, load-bearing frame rather than a frail or skinny-fat profile

Muscle Distribution: The Good News

Segmental analysis showed that muscle mass in my arms and legs is solid and well balanced left-to-right. Legs in particular carry a large amount of lean tissue, which aligns with strength and movement capacity rather than inactivity.

In other words: this is not a “lost muscle” problem. It’s a fat distribution problem layered on top of a muscular base

That distinction matters because it completely changes the strategy.

Where the Fat Is (And Why That’s the Priority)

The scan highlighted elevated fat concentration in the trunk and android (abdominal) region:

• Trunk fat: ~44%
• Android fat: ~48%
• Visceral Adipose Tissue (VAT): ~2.8 kg

Visceral fat is the metabolically active kind—the type associated with insulin resistance, cardiovascular risk, and inflammatory signaling. This isn’t about aesthetics. This is about risk management.

The DEXA heat map makes this impossible to ignore: the issue is central fat, not overall size.

Why Scale Weight Is a Terrible Metric

If I lost 15–20 kg without preserving muscle, the scale would look great and the outcome would be worse.

DEXA makes it clear that the correct objective is:

• Reduce fat mass aggressively
• Preserve (or even improve) skeletal muscle
• Shift fat distribution away from visceral storage

That’s not something you track with a bathroom scale.

Metabolism: No Excuses Here

An RMR of ~1,776 kcal/day is normal for my lean mass. There’s no “broken metabolism” narrative to hide behind. Fat loss here is not about metabolic damage—it’s about sustained energy control and consistency.

That’s actually good news, because it means the system responds predictably when the inputs are correct.

The Real Value of This Scan

What this scan gave me is clarity.

• I know muscle is not the limiting factor.
• I know exactly where the fat is.
• I know what type of fat matters most.
• I have a baseline that future scans can objectively compare against.

This turns body recomposition into an engineering problem instead of a motivational one.

Final Thought

Most people never get this level of feedback. They chase weight loss blindly, lose muscle, stall, and then assume age or genetics are the problem.

DEXA removes the guessing.

Now it’s just execution.