(Lack of ) Quality of nutritional supplements 16. May 2007 William Davis (0) In my last post, I blogged about how we must not confuse marketing with truth. They are often two different things. A patient I saw today was absolutely convinced that his fish oil was the best available in the world: purer, uncontaminated by mercury or pesticides--"not like that other crap on the shelves." I asked him how he knew this. "They say so," he proudly declared. Do you recognize this? He fell for the marketing. While there may be some truth in the manufacturer's claims, you can't believe it from the mouth of the manufacturer. True judgements about quality and purity have to come from an independent source like Consumer Reports, Consumer Lab, or the FDA. But the FDA doesn't regulate the quality and purity of nutritional supplements. On the positive side, this has allowed supplement manufacturers to keep costs down, not having to navigate arcane and complex regulatory restrictions. On the negative side, a fair number of supplement manufacturers get away with 1) producing supplements that fail to contain the stated amounts of ingredients, occasionally containing none of the essential ingredient(s), 2) contain contaminants like lead, and 3) make extravagant and often unfounded claims like "superior", "more effective", and "purer". (DHEA, for instance, is a particular landmine of poor quality. I recently suggested that a patient take DHEA; despite consistently taking 50 mg of a specific brand for several months, the blood level of DHEA-S didn't budge one bit--there was likely little or none in the capsule.)The Fanatic Cook at http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com has posted some very insightful discussions on this issue and the proposed FDA regulations of supplements. They're worth perusing. I really wish regulation weren't necessary and that the industry could have policed itself. But it clearly has failed and perhaps federal oversight is not such a bad thing, as long as the FDA regulations restrict themselves to oversight over quality and purity and not to efficacy. It's the efficacy regulation that could hogtie innovation in supplement development.
Marketing and truth are not the same 15. May 2007 William Davis (0) I often remind people: Don't confuse marketing with the truth. Today, I spent a total of probably an hour and a half dissuading patients that some crazed piece of marketing trying to sell them something was not the same as truth. I spent approximately 40 minutes alone with a woman who was absolutely convinced that:--Nattokinase would cure her of all heart disease. It does not. Despite the promising health benefits of natto and vitamin K2 supplementation, nattokinase is a scam with no basis in science nor logic.--Niacin destroys your liver and homeopathic remedies are superior. Quite simply, homeopathy = quackery. No rational thinking scientist endorses the utter nonsense practiced in this strange and outrageous set of practices that requires you to suspend all reason. --Sufficient vitamin D is obtainable through a "potent" multivitamin. I know of no multivitamin preparation that even begins to provide the dose of vitamin D that is actually required by adults, nor is it absorbed since these D preparations are powder based.--Fish oil will poison you with mercury. Accordingly, one brand of fish oil claims to be the only safe form. Those of you following these posts, or the reports of the USDA and FDA, as well as the reports of Consumer Reports and Consumer Lab (www.consumerlab.com) know that, unlike fish itself, there is no mercury in fish oil capsules.--All coronary atherosclerotic heart disease is caused by heavy metal poisoning. Thus chelation with EDTA represents a cure for heart disease. People are inundated with marketing that promise extravagant cures, remove need for any medication, make you smarter, sexier, thinner, and on and on. If you see a TV ad for Ford that says they make the best cars in the U.S., do you immediately run out and put a For Sale sign on your GM car and buy a Ford? No, of course not. You recognize the ad for what it is: marketing. It may be true, but a TV commercial is not enough to convince you. Then why would an ad promising extraordinary cures for cancer or heart disease convince you that this is true? It should not. Marketing ads should only serve to alert you to the possibility of value or benefit, but should never-- never--stand alone as proof. Take marketing for what it is: marketing of a product or service, not a scientific report, not a factual report, not news. Marketing is advertising. Period.
More on erectile dysfunction 13. May 2007 William Davis (8) Several facts on erectile dysfunction and coronary plaque:If you have erectile dysfunction, there's at least a 50% chance you also have coronary plaque. If you have coronary plaque by a CT heart scan, there's a 50% chance you have erectile dysfunction. If you have symptomatic coronary disease (chest pains, breathlessness, prior heart attack), there's a 90% chance you also have erectile dysfunction.Coronary disease is characterized by a dysfunctional state of the "endothelium", or inner lining of the coronary arteries. Erectile dysfunction is characterized by dysfunction of the endothelium of the penile circulation. Same phenomenon, different territories. (There are other differences, of course, but the two conditions share this fundamental phenomenon.) If you have any doubts about the physiologic effects of the supplement, l-arginine, just give it a try if you have erectile dysfunction. The erection enhancing effects alone should convince you that a genuine artery-dilating effect is exerted by this very powerful nutritional supplement. If l-arginine fails by itself to restore full erectile capacity, there are additional strategies, both nutritional and medical, that you can consider. Our newest Track Your Plaque Special Report on erectile dysfunction is coming out any day now.
High LDL cholesterol--only 11. May 2007 William Davis (3) As a sequel to my last post, just how often can we blame an isolated high LDL cholesterol as the cause of coronary plaque and a heart scan score?In other words, how often does someone prove to have only LDL cholesterol as the cause of a heart scan score . . . and nothing else? No low HDL, small LDL, lipoprotein(a), a post-prandial (after-eating) intermediate-density lipoprotein, inflammatory responses, phospholipase A2, high triglycerides, vitamin D deficiency, etc.Rarely. In fact, I can truly count the number of people who have only LDL cholesterol as their sole cause of coronary atherosclerotic plaque on one hand. It is really an infrequent situation. Far more commonly, people have 5, 6, 7 or more reasons for coronary plaque. Thus, the idea that a statin drug to reduce LDL will cure heart disease is completely folly. It does happen--but rarely. I think I've seen it happen twice. Much more commonly, a program that addresses all the causes of coronary plaque yields far superior benefits. In my view, an effort to identify all the causes is relatively easy, makes far better sense, and provides you much greater assurance that you will succeed in conquering heart disease and removing its evil influence from your life.
Heart disease = statin deficiency 10. May 2007 William Davis (1) Judging from the conversations I hear from colleagues, what I hear from the media, and drug company advertising, you'd think that heart disease has one cause--a deficiency of statin drugs. As their thinking goes, if you have coronary disease, you need a statin drug (Lipitor, Zocor, Crestor, pravachol, etc.). If you have progressive coronary disease, you need more statin drug. If you have a heart attack while on a statin drug, you need even more statin drug. Some "experts" have even proposed that we do away with LDL cholesterol and we just give everybody a statin drug at high doses. Does this make any sense to you? Doesn't it make better sense that if someone has progressive heart disease or heart attack while on a statin drug, then target the other causes largely unaffected by a statin drug? Perhaps if LDL cholesterol remains high on the statin drug, then a higher dose is justified. But more often than not, it's not a high LDL on statin drugs that responsible, it's other causes. And there's many of them: low HDL, VLDL, IDL, Lp(a), deficiency of omega-3 fatty acids, inflammatory processes, vitamin D deficiency, among others. (An important exception to this is when the conventional calculated LDL substantially underestimates true LDL as measured by LDL particle number by NMR, apoprotein B, or 'direct' LDL.) Imagine someone has pneumonia. After 2 weeks of antibiotics, they are only partly better. The solution: a higher dose of the same antibiotic--but never question if it was the right antibiotic in the first place. That's what is going on in heart disease. The doctors have been brainwashed into believing this $22 billion dollar per year bit of propaganda. The drug companies actively try to recruit the public into believing the same. Don't fall for it. The statin drugs do indeed have a role. But they are not the complete answer. More of the same when disease progresses makes no sense at all.
Fish oil and mercury 9. May 2007 William Davis (2) I often get questions about the mercury content in fish oil. I've even had patients come to the office saying their primary care doctor told them to stop fish oil to avoid mercury poisoning. Manufacturers of fish oil also make claims that this product or that ("super-concentrated", "pharmaceutical grade", "purified", etc.) is purer or less contaminated than competitors' products. The manufacturers of the "drug" Omacor, or prescription fish oil, have added to the confusion by suggesting that their product is the most pure of all, since it is the most concentrated of any fish oil preparation (900 mg EPA+DHA per capsule). They claim that "OMACOR is naturally derived through a unique, patented process that creates a highly concentrated, highly purified prescription medicine. By prescribing OMACOR® (omega-3-acid ethyl esters), a prescription omega-3, your doctor is giving you a concentrated and reliable omega-3. Each OMACOR capsule contains 90% omega-3 acids (84% EPA/DHA*). Nonprescription omega-3 dietary supplements typically contain only 13%-63% EPA/DHA." How much truth is there in these concerns?Let's go to the data published by the USDA, FDA, and several independent studies. Let's add to that the independent (and therefore presumably unbiased) analyses provided by Consumer Reports and Consumer Labs (www.consumerlab.com). How much mercury has been found in fish oil supplements?None.This is different from the mercury content of whole fish that you eat. Predatory fish that are at the top of the food chain and consume other fish and thereby concentrate organic methyl mercury, the toxic form of mercury. Thus, shark, swordfish, and King mackerel are higher in mercury than sardines, herring, and salmon. The mercury content of fish oil capsules have little to do with the method of processing and much more with the animal source of oil. Fish oil is generally obtained from sardines, salmon, and cod, all low in mercury. Fish oil capsules are not prepared from swordfish or shark. Thus, concerns about mercury from fish oil--regardless of brand--are generally unfounded, according to the best information we have. Eating whole fish--now that's another story for another time. But you and I can take our fish oil to reduce triglycerides, VLDL, IDL, small LDL, and heart attack risk without worrying about mercury.
How much omega-3s are enough? 8. May 2007 William Davis (7) The basic dose we advocate for the Track Your Plaque program is 1200 mg per day of EPA + DHA, the essential omega-3 fatty acids. 1200 mg EPA+DHA is generally obtainable by taking 4 capsules of 1000 mg of fish oil, since the majority of preparations contain 180 mg EPA and 120 mg DHA per capsule. But how will you know if a higher dose wouldn't be even better? The principal parameter to look at is triglycerides. If triglycerides remain above 60 mg/dl, we usually consider increasing fish oil. Another measure that's very important is intermediate-density lipoprotein, or IDL, also called "remnant lipoproteins" on a VAP panel. Persistence of any IDL or remnant lipoproteins is reason to consider more fish oil. Most commonly, if there is some persistence of either, we increase fish oil to 6000 mg per day of a standard preparation, or 1800 mg/day of EPA+DHA. The only time we see persistence of IDL or remnant lipoproteins with this higher dose is when triglycerides are really high. If starting triglycerides are, for instance, 500 mg/dl, then even this higher dose may be insufficient. This is when more highly concentrated preparations of fish oil may be necessary, occasionally even the prescription form, Omacor. (We currently use O Toggle navigation Home Blog Home Archive Join Now Log in Throw away total cholesterol! 17. May 2006 William Davis (1) Richard's total cholesterol without treatment was 186 mg/dl. "That's great!" his doctor declared, referring to the conventional dictum that total cholesterols less than 200 carry low risk. Several fingersticks in a mall kiosk set up by a local hospital to check total cholesterols confirmed Richard's low number. But after Richard's unexpected hospitalization and two stents for severe coronary blockages, he demanded better answers. Tragically, the answer was there all along: Despite a "favorable" total cholesterol, his HDL ("good") cholesterol was a miserable 32 mg (ideal >60 mg). Total cholesterol is actually the sum total of HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, with a contribution from triglycerides. That's why a low total cholesterol can conceal a low HDL. This situation is quite common. And low HDL is accompanied by a constellation of other undesirable causes of heart disease, most notably small LDL.Don't accept total cholesterol as your sole measure of risk. It's nearly worthless. If you live in Bangladesh or a third world country, well perhaps that's the best you can get. But if you live in the U.S. or developed world, it's absurd to rely on total cholesterol. Smart Start not so smart 15. May 2006 William Davis (2) Kellogg's has crafted a campaign to support the American Heart Association featuring acress Sela Ward. Her attractive face, familiar to many TV and movie viewers, does add a comforting face to their efforts. What's in this cereal made by the manufacturers of Pop-Tarts, Cheez-It, Rice Krispies, and Chips Deluxe cookies? There are, indeed, some healthy ingredients: oat bran, potassium; you can even get a version made with soy protein. But there's sugar listed as the second ingredient. High-fructose corn syrup is also listed prominently. (Remember this issue? High-fructose corn syrup causes overwhelming sugar cravings, causes your triglycerides to skyrocket, and is probably among the principal food ingredients that make you obese.)Upon detailed questioning of my patients struggling to lose weight, this and products like it are often among the "healthy" foods they've gravitated towards. We spend a great deal of time dissuading them of this idea. A one-cup serving of Smart Start is low in fat (1 gram) but contains 43 grams of carbohydates, of which there are 14 grams of sugar. There are a meager 3 grams of fiber. To me, this sounds like a cupcake.The Kellogg's people are exceptionally clever marketers. Partner with the American Heart Association and movie stars? Brilliant! You should trust food manufacturer advertising about as much as you trust drug manufacturer advertising, which is to say not at all. Kellogg's sold $10 billion dollars of food products last year. They are the world's leading producer of breakfast cereals. They are a leading producer of convenience foods: cookies, crackers, cereal bars, and frozen waffles under the brands Keebler, Pop-Tarts, Eggo, Cheez-It, Nutri-Grain, Rice Krispies, Famous Amos, and Kashi.Can they cash in on healthy trends? They'll certainly try. Does anybody have a normal vitamin D level? 15. May 2006 William Davis (0) We now routinely check everyone's vitamin D blood level at the start of the program. (The measure to obtain is 25-OH-Vitamin D3. This is not to be confused with 1,25-OH2-vitamin D3, which is a kidney function measure.)Of the 10 people with levels drawn today, none were even close to normal levels (which we define as 50 ng/ml)--not a single one. The majority were in the range of severe deficiency (<20 ng/ml). Only two had levels in the 30s. None had higher. (Remember: I'm talking about people in Wisconsin, a terribly sunlight-deprived area much of the year. This might not apply quite as vigorously to Florida residents or others in sun-exposed regions.) Curiously, I've also seen several people this week who had extraordinary quantities of coronary plaque on their heart scans (scores >1000), all of whom had extremely low vitamin D levels. One of these people had fairly unimpressive lipoproteins, with very minimal abnormalities identified. (This is quite unusual, by the way.) It makes you wonder if a profound deficiency of vitamin D is sufficient to act on its own as an instigator of coronary plaque.The more we examine the issue of vitamin D deficiency, the more fascinating it gets. I suspect we've just scratched the surface and there's a lot more to learn about this tremendously interesting nutrient. Nonetheless, with what we're seeing in our experience, I'm urging everyone to get a blood vitamin D level. Don't believe your LDL cholesterol! 14. May 2006 William Davis (0) Harry's case is typical. For years, his doctor told him his LDL cholesterol of 123 mg was okay. But a heart scan score of 490 (90th percentile at age 52) made him question just where his coronary plaque came from. Lipoprotein analysis told a very different story: His LDL particle number was 2400 nmol, meaning his trueLDL was more like 240 mg, nearly double the value of LDL obtained through his doctor. Harry had other sources of risk, too, but the LDL particle number was a clear stand-out. Why does this happen? How can LDL cholesterol be so terribly inaccurate?LDL cholesterols obtained in virtually all labs are not measured, they're calculated. The calculation was developed in the 1960s by Dr. Friedewald at the National Institutes of Health and therefore goes by his name (the Friedewald calculation). Dr. Friedewald derived this simple calculation to permit doctors across the U.S. to obtain LDL cholesterols, which were technically difficult to measure in those days by using measured HDL, total cholesterol and triglycerides. Doctors were told that the only time that the Friedewald calculated LDL was inaccurate was when triglycerides exceeded 400 mg. So most family practitioners and internists still believe that calculated LDL's are, for the most part, quite accurate. Nothing could be further from the truth. When LDL's are actually meaured, you find that LDL is rarely accurate. In fact, in our experience, inaccuracy of 30-50% is the rule, sometimes 100%. The one telltale hint that calculated LDL is wrong is when HDL is <50 mg--that's nearly everybody. So what's your LDL? You won't really know unless it's measured. Our preferred method is NMR (LipoScience) LDL particle number, probably the most accurate of all. Second best: apoprotein B, direct measured LDL, and non-HDL. (We'll cover this issue much more extensively in an upcoming report on the www.cureality.com website in an extensive Special Report.) Are you the exception? 14. May 2006 William Davis (0) I read about 40 heart scans this morning. In the stack was a 41-year old man with a heart scan score of 841. That's terribly high for anyone, let alone a 41-year old person. He's lucky to find out about this before catastrophe strikes. People like this worry me. In general, we advise men to consider a heart scan age 40 and older; women 50 and older. If there's anything exceptional about your family history or your own history, then you might notch these numbers down another 5-10 years. For instance, if your Dad had a heart attack at age 43, you might consider a scan at age 35. Or, if you've had diabetes for several years and you're a 42-year old woman, you might think about a scan. (Men tend to develop measurable plaque by heart scans 10 years before women.) There are no hard and fast rules. It's unusual for a male to have a score >0 before age 40. Likewise, it's very uncommon for a woman to have a score >0 before age 50. But there are occasional exceptions--but they can be very important exceptions. Our 41-year old man with the score of 841, for instance, probably had a high score since his mid-30s. I've seen several women without any obvious risk factors with scores in the several hundred range in their early 40s.My rule: When in doubt, opt for safety. Every day, I still read about people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s dying of heart attacks. It shouldn't happen. When in doubt, get the heart scan. The most you'll lose is the cost of the scan and a modest exposure to radiation. If your score is zero, you know you're safe for the next 5 or more years. But if you have an exceptional score at a young age, take preventive action. Self-empowerment in health: The new wave in health care 12. May 2006 William Davis (0) Track Your Plaque is just one facet of the broad and powerful emerging wave of self-empowerment in health. Hospitals, drug and device manufacturers, and the medical establishment don't like this idea. People managing their own health? That's ridiculous! Dangerous! But mostly unprofitable. Self-empowerment means having easy access to simple, safe, and inexpensive diagnostic tests like heart scans, carotid scans, bone densitometry (for osteoporosis), cholesterol tests, abdominal ultrasound, even brain scans (e.g., CT or MRI) for people with a family history of brain aneurysm.Opponents of this idea worry about the "false-positives" that come about with broad testing, i.e, detection of abnormalities that are artifactual. Our experience is that false-positives are only an occasional problem with any test. Instead, we find that most people have many true-positives. In CT heart scanning, for example, we find many unsuspected enlarged aortas (potential future aneurysms), valve disorders, and aortic calcium. These are all important in a preventive program. Unfortunately, your doctor's definition of false-positive often means that no corrective procedure or operation is required. Other evidence that self-empowerment in health is growing:--The nutritional supplement movement. What better example of power in managing your own health is there than the fabulous array of nutritional supplements available?--Medications moving to over-the-counter status. Gradually, more and more medications are trickling into availability for you to obtain without a doctor's prescription. --What I call "retail imaging", i.e. screening ultrasound, heart scans, full body scans, etc. that are available in most states without a doctor's order.--The Internet. The rapidity and depth of information available on the Internet today is mind-boggling. It will fuel the self-empowerment movement by providing sophisticated information to the health care consumer previously available only through your physician. --High-deductible health insurance plans. If health care consumers will bear more and more of the costs of health care, they will seize greater responsibility for early identification and prevention to minimize long-term costs.There are more. But the movement is powerful and broad--and unstoppable. Let the establishment with vested interests in preserving the status quo fuss and complain, just like horse and buggy manufacturers did in the early 1900's when the autmobile came along. Vitamin D deficiency is rampant 12. May 2006 William Davis (0) Today alone I've seen several people with severe deficiencies of vitamin D. We're now checking everyone's blood vitamin D level at the start of the program. The measure that most accurately reflects your vitamin D status is 25-OH-vitamin D3. This is very confusing to many physicians, who traditionally have thought of 1,25-di-Hydroxy vitamin D3 as the standard test to measure. What they're failing to recognize is that this second measure is a kidney product, not a reflection of vitamin D status. Using 25-OH-vitamin D3, several people today alone had levels of <10 ng/ml, clearly in the category of severe deficiency (generally regarded as <20ng/ml).The majority of people we see in the office are Wisconsin residents. It's no wonder they're deficient. Although it's mid-May, we've seen the sun only a handful of days this year. And most of the days have been too chilly to wear short sleeves and shorts to permit sufficient surface area for UV exposure. Living in a sunny climate, however, is no guarantee that you have sufficient blood vitamin D levels. Two recent studies have shown that 30-50% of the residents of sunny southern Florida and Hawaii are also deficient. (Why, I'm not sure.) Although our experience thus f
Throw away total cholesterol! 17. May 2006 William Davis (1) Richard's total cholesterol without treatment was 186 mg/dl. "That's great!" his doctor declared, referring to the conventional dictum that total cholesterols less than 200 carry low risk. Several fingersticks in a mall kiosk set up by a local hospital to check total cholesterols confirmed Richard's low number. But after Richard's unexpected hospitalization and two stents for severe coronary blockages, he demanded better answers. Tragically, the answer was there all along: Despite a "favorable" total cholesterol, his HDL ("good") cholesterol was a miserable 32 mg (ideal >60 mg). Total cholesterol is actually the sum total of HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, with a contribution from triglycerides. That's why a low total cholesterol can conceal a low HDL. This situation is quite common. And low HDL is accompanied by a constellation of other undesirable causes of heart disease, most notably small LDL.Don't accept total cholesterol as your sole measure of risk. It's nearly worthless. If you live in Bangladesh or a third world country, well perhaps that's the best you can get. But if you live in the U.S. or developed world, it's absurd to rely on total cholesterol.
Smart Start not so smart 15. May 2006 William Davis (2) Kellogg's has crafted a campaign to support the American Heart Association featuring acress Sela Ward. Her attractive face, familiar to many TV and movie viewers, does add a comforting face to their efforts. What's in this cereal made by the manufacturers of Pop-Tarts, Cheez-It, Rice Krispies, and Chips Deluxe cookies? There are, indeed, some healthy ingredients: oat bran, potassium; you can even get a version made with soy protein. But there's sugar listed as the second ingredient. High-fructose corn syrup is also listed prominently. (Remember this issue? High-fructose corn syrup causes overwhelming sugar cravings, causes your triglycerides to skyrocket, and is probably among the principal food ingredients that make you obese.)Upon detailed questioning of my patients struggling to lose weight, this and products like it are often among the "healthy" foods they've gravitated towards. We spend a great deal of time dissuading them of this idea. A one-cup serving of Smart Start is low in fat (1 gram) but contains 43 grams of carbohydates, of which there are 14 grams of sugar. There are a meager 3 grams of fiber. To me, this sounds like a cupcake.The Kellogg's people are exceptionally clever marketers. Partner with the American Heart Association and movie stars? Brilliant! You should trust food manufacturer advertising about as much as you trust drug manufacturer advertising, which is to say not at all. Kellogg's sold $10 billion dollars of food products last year. They are the world's leading producer of breakfast cereals. They are a leading producer of convenience foods: cookies, crackers, cereal bars, and frozen waffles under the brands Keebler, Pop-Tarts, Eggo, Cheez-It, Nutri-Grain, Rice Krispies, Famous Amos, and Kashi.Can they cash in on healthy trends? They'll certainly try.
Does anybody have a normal vitamin D level? 15. May 2006 William Davis (0) We now routinely check everyone's vitamin D blood level at the start of the program. (The measure to obtain is 25-OH-Vitamin D3. This is not to be confused with 1,25-OH2-vitamin D3, which is a kidney function measure.)Of the 10 people with levels drawn today, none were even close to normal levels (which we define as 50 ng/ml)--not a single one. The majority were in the range of severe deficiency (<20 ng/ml). Only two had levels in the 30s. None had higher. (Remember: I'm talking about people in Wisconsin, a terribly sunlight-deprived area much of the year. This might not apply quite as vigorously to Florida residents or others in sun-exposed regions.) Curiously, I've also seen several people this week who had extraordinary quantities of coronary plaque on their heart scans (scores >1000), all of whom had extremely low vitamin D levels. One of these people had fairly unimpressive lipoproteins, with very minimal abnormalities identified. (This is quite unusual, by the way.) It makes you wonder if a profound deficiency of vitamin D is sufficient to act on its own as an instigator of coronary plaque.The more we examine the issue of vitamin D deficiency, the more fascinating it gets. I suspect we've just scratched the surface and there's a lot more to learn about this tremendously interesting nutrient. Nonetheless, with what we're seeing in our experience, I'm urging everyone to get a blood vitamin D level.
Don't believe your LDL cholesterol! 14. May 2006 William Davis (0) Harry's case is typical. For years, his doctor told him his LDL cholesterol of 123 mg was okay. But a heart scan score of 490 (90th percentile at age 52) made him question just where his coronary plaque came from. Lipoprotein analysis told a very different story: His LDL particle number was 2400 nmol, meaning his trueLDL was more like 240 mg, nearly double the value of LDL obtained through his doctor. Harry had other sources of risk, too, but the LDL particle number was a clear stand-out. Why does this happen? How can LDL cholesterol be so terribly inaccurate?LDL cholesterols obtained in virtually all labs are not measured, they're calculated. The calculation was developed in the 1960s by Dr. Friedewald at the National Institutes of Health and therefore goes by his name (the Friedewald calculation). Dr. Friedewald derived this simple calculation to permit doctors across the U.S. to obtain LDL cholesterols, which were technically difficult to measure in those days by using measured HDL, total cholesterol and triglycerides. Doctors were told that the only time that the Friedewald calculated LDL was inaccurate was when triglycerides exceeded 400 mg. So most family practitioners and internists still believe that calculated LDL's are, for the most part, quite accurate. Nothing could be further from the truth. When LDL's are actually meaured, you find that LDL is rarely accurate. In fact, in our experience, inaccuracy of 30-50% is the rule, sometimes 100%. The one telltale hint that calculated LDL is wrong is when HDL is <50 mg--that's nearly everybody. So what's your LDL? You won't really know unless it's measured. Our preferred method is NMR (LipoScience) LDL particle number, probably the most accurate of all. Second best: apoprotein B, direct measured LDL, and non-HDL. (We'll cover this issue much more extensively in an upcoming report on the www.cureality.com website in an extensive Special Report.)
Are you the exception? 14. May 2006 William Davis (0) I read about 40 heart scans this morning. In the stack was a 41-year old man with a heart scan score of 841. That's terribly high for anyone, let alone a 41-year old person. He's lucky to find out about this before catastrophe strikes. People like this worry me. In general, we advise men to consider a heart scan age 40 and older; women 50 and older. If there's anything exceptional about your family history or your own history, then you might notch these numbers down another 5-10 years. For instance, if your Dad had a heart attack at age 43, you might consider a scan at age 35. Or, if you've had diabetes for several years and you're a 42-year old woman, you might think about a scan. (Men tend to develop measurable plaque by heart scans 10 years before women.) There are no hard and fast rules. It's unusual for a male to have a score >0 before age 40. Likewise, it's very uncommon for a woman to have a score >0 before age 50. But there are occasional exceptions--but they can be very important exceptions. Our 41-year old man with the score of 841, for instance, probably had a high score since his mid-30s. I've seen several women without any obvious risk factors with scores in the several hundred range in their early 40s.My rule: When in doubt, opt for safety. Every day, I still read about people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s dying of heart attacks. It shouldn't happen. When in doubt, get the heart scan. The most you'll lose is the cost of the scan and a modest exposure to radiation. If your score is zero, you know you're safe for the next 5 or more years. But if you have an exceptional score at a young age, take preventive action.
Self-empowerment in health: The new wave in health care 12. May 2006 William Davis (0) Track Your Plaque is just one facet of the broad and powerful emerging wave of self-empowerment in health. Hospitals, drug and device manufacturers, and the medical establishment don't like this idea. People managing their own health? That's ridiculous! Dangerous! But mostly unprofitable. Self-empowerment means having easy access to simple, safe, and inexpensive diagnostic tests like heart scans, carotid scans, bone densitometry (for osteoporosis), cholesterol tests, abdominal ultrasound, even brain scans (e.g., CT or MRI) for people with a family history of brain aneurysm.Opponents of this idea worry about the "false-positives" that come about with broad testing, i.e, detection of abnormalities that are artifactual. Our experience is that false-positives are only an occasional problem with any test. Instead, we find that most people have many true-positives. In CT heart scanning, for example, we find many unsuspected enlarged aortas (potential future aneurysms), valve disorders, and aortic calcium. These are all important in a preventive program. Unfortunately, your doctor's definition of false-positive often means that no corrective procedure or operation is required. Other evidence that self-empowerment in health is growing:--The nutritional supplement movement. What better example of power in managing your own health is there than the fabulous array of nutritional supplements available?--Medications moving to over-the-counter status. Gradually, more and more medications are trickling into availability for you to obtain without a doctor's prescription. --What I call "retail imaging", i.e. screening ultrasound, heart scans, full body scans, etc. that are available in most states without a doctor's order.--The Internet. The rapidity and depth of information available on the Internet today is mind-boggling. It will fuel the self-empowerment movement by providing sophisticated information to the health care consumer previously available only through your physician. --High-deductible health insurance plans. If health care consumers will bear more and more of the costs of health care, they will seize greater responsibility for early identification and prevention to minimize long-term costs.There are more. But the movement is powerful and broad--and unstoppable. Let the establishment with vested interests in preserving the status quo fuss and complain, just like horse and buggy manufacturers did in the early 1900's when the autmobile came along.
Vitamin D deficiency is rampant 12. May 2006 William Davis (0) Today alone I've seen several people with severe deficiencies of vitamin D. We're now checking everyone's blood vitamin D level at the start of the program. The measure that most accurately reflects your vitamin D status is 25-OH-vitamin D3. This is very confusing to many physicians, who traditionally have thought of 1,25-di-Hydroxy vitamin D3 as the standard test to measure. What they're failing to recognize is that this second measure is a kidney product, not a reflection of vitamin D status. Using 25-OH-vitamin D3, several people today alone had levels of <10 ng/ml, clearly in the category of severe deficiency (generally regarded as <20ng/ml).The majority of people we see in the office are Wisconsin residents. It's no wonder they're deficient. Although it's mid-May, we've seen the sun only a handful of days this year. And most of the days have been too chilly to wear short sleeves and shorts to permit sufficient surface area for UV exposure. Living in a sunny climate, however, is no guarantee that you have sufficient blood vitamin D levels. Two recent studies have shown that 30-50% of the residents of sunny southern Florida and Hawaii are also deficient. (Why, I'm not sure.) Although our experience thus f