Most of what gets discussed in this space is unmeasurable. This part is not. Blood pressure, ApoB and haematocrit are numbers you can get for the price of a meal, and they carry most of the risk. This scores where you actually stand and, more usefully, shows what the score becomes once you fix the two things most worth fixing.
Leave blank what you do not have. ApoB is the one worth chasing if you only get one thing added to your next panel, because it counts atherogenic particles directly rather than estimating them.
Atherogenic burden carries the most weight because ApoB-driven plaque is the dominant mechanism behind cardiovascular events on cycle, and it is also the most modifiable. Cumulative exposure is weighted separately because plaque volume rises with total years of use, not just current dose. Domains without data are excluded rather than filled with assumed values, and the remaining weights renormalise so the score only reflects what was actually measured. Confirm your inputs against your own Bloodwork Analyzer results.
The number itself matters less than the projection. Once at least one domain has genuine room to move, usually the lipid picture or blood pressure, the tool shows what the score becomes if those two are addressed. That turns a static figure into a lever you can act on, rather than a verdict to sit with. If haematocrit is part of what is driving your number, it is worth reading alongside the Serum Testosterone Level Calculator, since dose and viscosity move together.
This is an educational risk assessment, not a diagnosis, and it generates no dosing guidance. Symptoms like chest pain, fainting or palpitations override the score entirely, and a prior cardiac diagnosis routes you away from a risk predictor altogether, because secondary prevention targets are set by a cardiologist, not estimated from a questionnaire.
A lipid panel (ApoB or LDL, plus HDL if you have it) and a properly taken blood pressure reading are the two largest inputs, together carrying nearly half the weighting. Haematocrit, resting heart rate, compound history, years of use and family history refine it further. Leave blank whatever you do not have.
ApoB counts atherogenic particles directly rather than estimating them from cholesterol content, and it predicts cardiovascular events better than LDL. LDL is still usable if that is all you have, but ApoB is the single most useful number to add to your next panel.
No. If you report symptoms like chest pain, fainting or breathlessness out of proportion to your fitness, the score is withheld because a risk predictor is the wrong tool for someone who may be having an active problem. The same applies if you have already been diagnosed with a cardiac condition, which puts you in secondary prevention rather than risk estimation.
Where at least one domain has real room to improve, the tool shows what your score becomes if you address the two most fixable drivers, usually the lipid picture and blood pressure. Both respond within weeks to months, which turns the number into something actionable rather than just a rating.
Partially, and the evidence is direct rather than assumed. The HAARLEM study found left ventricular mass rose with weekly dose and returned to baseline after a median of eight months off. Other work has found reduced systolic function persisting in former users, so recovery appears real and substantial without necessarily being complete.
