You just THINK you're low-carb 27. February 2010 William Davis (72) Systematically checking postprandial (after-eating) blood sugars is providing some great insights into crafting a better diet for many people. I last discussed the concept of postprandial glucose checks in To get low-carb right, you need to check blood sugars.Here are some important lessons that many people--NON-diabetic people, most with normal blood glucoses or just mildly increased--are learning:Oatmeal yields high blood sugars. Even if your fasting blood sugar is 90 mg/dl, a bowl of oatmeal with skim milk, walnuts, and some berries will yield blood sugars of 150-200 mg/dl in many people. Cheerios yields shocking blood sugars. 200+ mg/dl is not uncommon in non-diabetics. (Diabetics have 250-350 mg/dl.) Fruits like apples and bananas increase blood sugar to 130 mg/dl or higher. Odd symptoms, such as mental "fog," fatigue, and a fullness in the head, are often attributable to high blood sugars. A subset of people with lipoprotein(a) can have wildly increased blood sugars despite their slender build and high aerobic exercise habits. Once you identify the high blood sugar problem, you can do something about it. The best place to start is to reduce or eliminate the sugar-provoking food.
The LDL-Fructose Disconnect 26. February 2010 William Davis (8) I believe that we can all agree that the commonly obtained Friedewald LDL cholesterol (what I call "fictitious" LDL cholesterol) is wildly inaccurate. 100%--yes, 100% inaccuracy--is not at all uncommon.This flagrant inaccuracy, unacceptable in virtually every other discipline (imagine your airplane flight to New York lands in Pittsburgh--close enough, isn't it?), is highlighted in the University of California study by Stanhope et al I discussed previously.32 participants consumed either a diet enriched with either fructose or glucose. Compared to the effect of glucose, after 10 weeks fructose:Increased LDL cholesterol (calculated) by 7.6%Increased Apoprotein B (a measure of the number of LDL particles) by 24%Increased small dense LDL by 41%Increased oxidized LDL by 12.6% In other words, conventional calculated LDL substantially underestimates the undesirable effects of fructose. The divergence between calculated LDL and small LDL is especially dramatic. (By the way, this same divergence applies to the studies suggesting that calculated LDL cholesterol is reduced by low fat diets--While calculated LDL may indeed be reduced, small LDL goes way up, a striking divergence.) This is yet another reason to not rely on this "fictitious" LDL cholesterol value that, inaccuracies notwithstanding, serves as the foundation for a $27 billion per year industry.
"I dream about bread" 25. February 2010 William Davis (14) Marion sat in my office, sobbing. It had been 4 weeks since the last piece of bread, bagel, or bun had passed her lips. "I can't do it! I just can't do it! I've tried to eliminate wheat, but it's making me crazy. I'm having dreams about bread!"Yes, Timmy, such dark corners of human behavior are truly unveiled by removing wheat from the diet. (See the previous Heart Scan Blog post, Wheat withdrawal.)This is a real phenomenon: Wheat is the crack cocaine of the masses. Maybe you don't exchange $100 bills in dark corners of an inner city crack house, but I'll bet you paid $3.99 for your latest fix of French bread. Just in the last 2 weeks, people in my office who have eliminated wheat have experienced:14 lbs weight loss in 14 daysIncreased mental clarity, reduced moodiness, deeper sleep70% reductions in small LDL More than 300 mg/dl reductions in triglyceridesRelief from chronic scalp rashI could go on. All the while, the USDA, the American Heart Association, the American Diabetes Association, the American Dietetic Association, the Surgeon General's Office all advise you to eat more "healthy whole grains." 70% of people (NOT 100%, but the majority) will experience unexpected health benefits by eliminating this corrupt, unphysiologic product called wheat from their diet. You won't know until you try.
Prototypical Lipoprotein(a) 25. February 2010 William Davis (23) Here's the prototypical male with lipoprotein(a):Several features stand out in the majority of men with lipoprotein(a), Lp(a):Slender--Sometimes absurdly so: BMIs of 21-23 are not uncommon. These are the people who claim they can't gain weight. Intelligent--Above average to way above average intelligence is the rule. Gravitate to technical work--Plenty of engineers, scientists, accountants, and other people who work with numbers and/or technical details are more likely to have Lp(a). Enjoy high levels of aerobic performance--I tell my Lp(a) patients that, if they want to see a bunch of other people with Lp(a), go to a marathon or triathlon. They'll see plenty of people with the pattern among the aerobically-elite. Are rabid fans of Star Trek. Okay, I made the last one up. But the rest are uncannilly true, shared by the majority (though not all) men with Lp(a). Why? I can only speculate that the gene(s) for Lp(a) are closely linked to gene(s) for intelligence of a quantitative kind and some factor that enhances aerobic performance or yields a desirable emotional state with exercise. Oddly, the same patterns tend not to occur in women in Lp(a). I have yet to discern a personality or body configuration phenotype among the ladies.
Gastric emptying: When slower is better 20. February 2010 William Davis (18) When it comes to the Internet and Nascar, speed is good: The faster the better. But when it comes to gastric emptying (the rate at which food passes from the stomach and into the duodenum and small intestine), slower can be better. Slower transit time for foods passing through the stomach leads to lower blood sugar, lower blood glucose area under-the-curve (AUC), i.e., reduced blood glucose levels over time. Lower postprandial (after-eating) blood sugars can reduce cardiovascular risk. It can lead to a reduction in net calorie intake and weight loss. Strategies that can slow gastric emptying include:--Minimizing fluids during a meal--Drinking a lot of fluids, e.g., water, accelerates gastric emptying by approximately 20%. --Cinnamon--While the full reason to explain Cassia cinnamon's blood glucose-reducing effect has not been completely worked out, part of the effect is likely to due slowed gastric emptying. Thus, a 1/4-2 teaspoons of cinnamon per day can reduce postprandial blood sugar peaks by 10-25 mg/dl. --Vinegar--Two teaspoons of vinegar in its various forms slows gastric emptying. The effect is likely due to acetic acid, the compound shared by apple cider vinegar, white vinegar, red wine vinegar, Balsamic vinegar, and other varieties. --Increased fat content--Fat is digested more slowly and slows gastric emptying time, compared to the rapid transit of carbohydrates. Not everybody should slow gastric emptying. Diabetics with a condition called diabetic gastroparesis should not use these methods, as they can further slow the abnormal gastric emptying that develops as part of their disease, making a bad situation worse. However, in the rest of us with normal gastric emptying time, a delay in gastric emptying can reduce blood sugar and induce satiety, effects that can work in your favor in reducing cardiovascular risk.
Genetic vs. lifestyle small LDL 19. February 2010 William Davis (59) Let me explain what I mean by "genetic small LDL." I think it helps to illustrate with two common examples. Ollie is 50 years old, 5 ft 10 inches tall, and weighs 253 lbs. BMI = 36.4 (obese). Starting lipoproteins (NMR):LDL particle number 2310 nmol/LSmall LDL: 1893 nmol/L (1893/2310 = 81.9% of total, a severe small LDL pattern)Stan is 50 years old, also, 5 ft 10 inches tall, and weighs 148 lbs. BMI = 21.3. Starting lipoproteins:LDL particle number 1424 nmol/LSmall LDL 1288 nmol/L (1288/1424 = 90.4% of total, also severe)Both Ollie and Stan go on the New Track Your Plaque diet and eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, while increasing oils, meats and fish, unlimited raw nuts, and vegetables. They add fish oil and vitamin D and achieve perfect levels of both. Six months later, Ollie has lost 55 lbs, Stan has lost 4 lbs. A second round of lipoproteins:Ollie:LDL particle number 1810 nmol/LSmall LDL: 193 nmol/L (193/1810 = 10.6% of total)Stan:LDL particle number 1113 nmol/LSmall LDL 729 nmool/L (729/1113 = 65.4% of total)Ollie has reduced, nearly eliminated, small LDL through elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, along with weight loss, fish oil, and vitamin D. Stan, beginning at a much more favorable weight, reduced both total and small LDL with the same efforts, but retains a substantial proportion (65.4%) of small LDL. Stan's pattern is what I call "genetic small LDL." Of course, this is a presumptive designation, since we've not identified the specific gene(s) that allow this (e.g., gene for variants of cholesteryl ester transfer protein, hepatic lipase, lipoprotein lipase, and others). But it is such a sharp distinction that I am convinced that people like Stan have this persistent pattern as a genetically-determined trait.
Carbohydrate sins of the past 17. February 2010 William Davis (15) Fifty years ago, diabetes was a relatively uncommon disease. Today, the latest estimates are that 50% of Americans are now diabetic or pre-diabetic. There are some obvious explanations: excess weight, inactivity, the proliferation of fructose in our diets. It is also my firm belief that the diets advocated by official agencies, like the USDA, the American Heart Association, the American Dietetic Association, and the American Diabetes Association, have also contributed with their advice to eat more “healthy whole grains.” When I was a kid, I ate Lucky Charms® or Cocoa Puffs® for breakfast, carried Hoho’s® and Scooter Pies® in my lunchbox, along with a peanut butter sandwich on white bread. We ate TV dinners, biscuits, instant mashed potatoes for dinner. Back then, it was a matter of novelty, convenience, and, yes, taste. What did we do to our p Toggle navigation Home Blog Home Archive Join Now Log in Beware the "false positive" stress test 4. March 2007 William Davis (11) There's a widely-known (among cardiologists) problem with nuclear stress tests. It's called the "false positive." (Nuclear stress tests are known as stress Cardiolites, stress thalliums, stress Myoviews, persantine stress tests, adenosine stress tests)Stress tests, nuclear and otherwise, are helpful for identifying areas of poor blood flow. If an area of poor blood flow is detected and the area is substantial, then there may be greater risk of heart attack and other undesirable events in the relatively near future. What "false positive" means is a stress test that shows an abnormality but it's not true--it is falsely abnormal. There are a number of reasons why this can happen. The problem is that this phenomenon is very common. Up to 20% of nuclear stress tests are false positives. There are indeed situations where there may an abnormality and it is not clear whether it is true or false. This may lead to a justifiable heart catheterization or CT coronary angiogram. But, given the extraordinary number of false positives, there's a lot of gray in interpreting these tests. Hospital staff, in fact, call nuclear medicine "unclear" medicine. It's common knowledge that you can often see just about anything you want to see on a nuclear image of the heart. Abnormalities in the bottom of the heart, the "inferior" wall, are especially common due to the overlap of the diaphragm with the heart muscle, yielding the appearance of reduced blood flow. Defects in the front of the heart heart are common in females with large breasts for the same reasons. The problem: The uncertainty inherent in nuclear stress tests opens the door to the unscrupulous or lazy practitioner. Any blip, tick, or imperfection on the nuclear images serve as carte blanche to drag you into the hospital for procedures. This abusive practice is, in my experience, shockingly common for two reasons: 1) It pays better to do heart catheterizations, and 2) Defensive medicine. What's the disincentive? Only doing the right thing and maintaining a clear conscience. Slim reasons for many of my colleagues--and a lot less money. If you are without symptoms and feel fine, and a nuclear stress test is advised by your doctor, followed by a discussion of an abnormality, insist on a discussion of exactly what is abnormal, just how abnormal, and what the alternatives might be. If you receive unsatisfactory or incomplete answers despite your best effort, it's time for another opinion. Don't neglect your magnesium 3. March 2007 William Davis (3) Magnesium is kind of boring. So most people don't pay too much attention to it.Magnesium can be important, however. I saw an interesting phenomenon recently. A type I diabetic patient of mine (that is, an adult who developed diabetes as a child), Mitch, was experiencing wide swings in blood sugar: low low's and very high high's (300-400 mg/dl). Mitch's magnesium was only marginally low at 2.0 mEq/L. (Ranges for normal magnesium blood levels are usually 1.3–2.1 mEq/L or 0.65–1.05 mmol/L.) Note that Mitch's blood levels fall within "normal." I do not agree with these "normal" ranges. I shoot for 2.1 to 2.4 mEq/L, which I think is the truly normal range. In addition to eating plenty of raw nuts and green vegetables, Mitch began supplementing magnesium with magnesium citrate, 200 mg twice a day (our preferred supplement form). He reported that the wide swings in blood sugar were nearly eliminated. Mitch's dramatic benefit is just a great illustration of how magnesium can help control blood sugar metabolism. A type I diabetic is more sensitive to the effects, but anyone with type II (adult) diabetes, metabolic syndrome, or just a slightly high blood sugar could benefit from magnesium supplementation. There's a number of ways to accomplish getting sufficient magnesium in your daily regimen. Track Your Plaque members, Be sure to read: Your water may be killing you at http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_03-002magnesium.asp Magnesium: Water to the rescue! at http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_03-010magnesium2.asp Third heart scan a charm 1. March 2007 William Davis (0) It struck me recently that, for many people, it's not the second but the third heart scan that more commonly shows a reduction in score. I think this is because many people's reaction to their first heart scan is "This can't be. There's no way my arteries have that much plaque." They then follow a half-hearted program to correct their patterns. When the second heart scan shows a significantly higher score, that really catches their attention. This is when they finally buckle down and give it their all.Only the occasional person will, after the first heart scan, seize full control and take their program very seriously. These tend to be highly motivated people. Don't feel too bad if your second heart scan score shows an increase. Look at it for what it represents: feedback on the adequacy of your program. Metabolic syndrome--cured 27. February 2007 William Davis (0) Peter started out at age 59 at 248 lbs, standing 6 ft tall (BMI = 33.6!). Along with his weight, Peter had the entire panel of phenemena of the so-called "metabolic syndrome", or pre-diabetes:--Triglycerides 238 mg/dl and associated with extremes of excess VLDL and IDL--High blood pressure --Blood sugar 115 mg/dl--High c-reactive protein--Small LDL particles 99% of total LDLInterestingly, Peter's HDL was a surprisingly favorable 58 mg/dl (HDL is usually low in this syndrome). However, when broken down by size, he had nearly zero large, healthy HDL (sometimes called HDL2b). Though total HDL was favorable, most of it was simply ineffective. Peter eliminated snacks and processed foods, particularly bread; increased his reliance on healthy oils and lean proteins; incorporated soy protein; increased vegetables. He added 30 minutes of a rapid walk on a treadmill every day. He added vitamin D to achieve a blood level of 50 ng/dml. He added a magnesium supplement. Peter has lost 31 lbs. in the last year. Weight 207 lbs., BMI 28.1 (desirable <25). Blood sugar: 96 mg/dl; triglycerides: 56 mg/dl; HDL 71 mg/dl with 35% in the large fraction; small LDL 45% of total. Not perfect, but a damn site better. Control of metabolic syndrome is an achievable goal for over 90% of people, just with these simple efforts. We haven't yet had a chance to assess the effect on the progression or regression of Peter's heart scan score, but he has, at the very least, spared himself a future of diabetes and all its complications. Heart Scan Curiosities #6 27. February 2007 William Davis (0) This is a "slice" from a normal heart scan in a 58 year old woman. Heart scan score zero. Look at the lungs, the dark areas left and right of the heart in the center. The lungs are also normal. Black represents normal density, healthy lung tissue. The white streaking is just normal lung blood vessels. This person doesn't smoke. This woman smokes a pack of cigarettes a day and has done so for 45 years ("45 pack-years"). She had a surprisingly low heart scan score (at age 64) of only 71, despite the smoking. However, look at this woman's lungs. It's a little tough to make out, since the computer graphics loses some of the resolution. But you can see the near absence of lung tissue on both sides. This is an advanced phase of the destructive lung disease, emphysema, from smoking. Even if she quit smoking today, the destroyed lung tissue never grows back. She literally has huge gaps or holes in her lungs where lung tissue used to be. Smoking is among the most destructive, terrible things you can do to your body, short of swallowing strychnine or jumping off a building. Stay as far the heck away from cigarettes as you possibly can. If you are exposed to "secondary" smoke, insist that the person never smoke in your presence. It's not the smell that destroys your lungs or causes coronary plaque (though it is indeed foul), it's the actual smoke. Should you become a vegetarian? 24. February 2007 William Davis (0) Do you need to become a vegetarian in order to reduce your heart scan score?No. Plain and simple. We’ve had many non-vegetarians drop their scores.That said, are there still advantages to following a vegetarian diet, or some variation on the vegetarian theme?Yes, there are. Let’s put aside the moral or religious arguments in favor of not eating animals—the need to eliminate killing animals for food, elimination of suffering common in modern livestock practices, Kosher considerations, etc. (Not that there aren’t real arguments here. Our focus for this conversation is not, however, the moral dilemma, but the health argument.)Some of the most unhealthy people I’ve ever met, mostly males, are proud carnivores who boast of their prodigious capacities to eat meat. Unfortunately, it’s hard to tease out the ill-effects of excessive meat eating, since these same men also tend to be substantially overweight, smoke, drink excessively, and fail to get exercise unless their job is physically demanding. You know the type.What advantages does a vegetarian obtain? A number of studies have suggested that the reduced saturated fat, reduced exposure to parasites, as well as reduced exposure to the antibiotics and hormones now used routinely in livestock-raising practices, do indeed provide benefits to the vegetarian. Thus, vegetarians tend to be substantially thinner, experience less bowel cancer, have less diabetes and heart disease, and live longer. (If you are interested in reading or seeing more about just how inhumane modern livestock practices are, take a look at the video, "Meet Your Meat" at meat.org. Be sure not to view this after dinner.) Of course, some of the disadvantages of eating animal products diminish when free-range livestock are eaten, i.e., livestock not raised in the inhumane cramped, filthy conditions of livestock factories, but in the open, grazing or rooting freely. These animals tend to have different fat compositions and taste different. The advantages of vegetarianism, however, have blurred in recent years, since many so-called vegetarians have failed to maintain the distinction between naturally-occurring foods and processed foods. So, Ritz Crackers, Oreo cookies, whole wheat bread, and Raisin Bran fit into a vegetarian program, but they’re awful for your health. I’ll occasionally meet a self-proclaimed vegetarian who looks every bit as unhealthy as a conventionally eating American, that is, overweight, pre-diabetic person with a developing heart scan score.So it is not necessary to be vegetarian to reduce your score. You might consider vegetarianism for other reasons, such as moral considerations, or to reduce your risk for cancer. But it is not necessary to drop your heart scan score. A non-processed food diet? Now that's is worth giving serious consideration. Let's make it a lot easier 24. February 2007 William Davis (0) The American Heart Association just released a new set of consensus guidelines on heart disease prevention in women: Evidence-Based Guidelines for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Women: 2007 Update For those of you following the Heart Scan Blog and the Track Your Plaque program, there will be little new in the guidelines. In fact, you'll wonder if the date on the front of the report should be 1987, rather than 2007. Did you know that you should exercise and eat healthy?Take a look at the list of risk factors for coronary vascular disease (CVD) listed in the report:Major risk factors for CVD, including:Cigarette smokingPoor dietPhysical inactivityObesity, especially central adiposityFamily history of premature CVD (CVD at <55>Progress: You'll notice that buried inside the list is "Evidence of subclinical vascular disease (e.g., coronary calcification)". Just a few short years ago that wouldn't have even been included.The Track Your Plaque contention is that, for the great majority of women, this list could be shortened to one item: coronary calcification. As time goes on, the people who argue and draft these guidelines will come to the realization that coronary calcification is the disease--it's not a risk for the disease, a predictor of the disease. Coronary calcification is the disease itself. The other items on the list recede way into
Beware the "false positive" stress test 4. March 2007 William Davis (11) There's a widely-known (among cardiologists) problem with nuclear stress tests. It's called the "false positive." (Nuclear stress tests are known as stress Cardiolites, stress thalliums, stress Myoviews, persantine stress tests, adenosine stress tests)Stress tests, nuclear and otherwise, are helpful for identifying areas of poor blood flow. If an area of poor blood flow is detected and the area is substantial, then there may be greater risk of heart attack and other undesirable events in the relatively near future. What "false positive" means is a stress test that shows an abnormality but it's not true--it is falsely abnormal. There are a number of reasons why this can happen. The problem is that this phenomenon is very common. Up to 20% of nuclear stress tests are false positives. There are indeed situations where there may an abnormality and it is not clear whether it is true or false. This may lead to a justifiable heart catheterization or CT coronary angiogram. But, given the extraordinary number of false positives, there's a lot of gray in interpreting these tests. Hospital staff, in fact, call nuclear medicine "unclear" medicine. It's common knowledge that you can often see just about anything you want to see on a nuclear image of the heart. Abnormalities in the bottom of the heart, the "inferior" wall, are especially common due to the overlap of the diaphragm with the heart muscle, yielding the appearance of reduced blood flow. Defects in the front of the heart heart are common in females with large breasts for the same reasons. The problem: The uncertainty inherent in nuclear stress tests opens the door to the unscrupulous or lazy practitioner. Any blip, tick, or imperfection on the nuclear images serve as carte blanche to drag you into the hospital for procedures. This abusive practice is, in my experience, shockingly common for two reasons: 1) It pays better to do heart catheterizations, and 2) Defensive medicine. What's the disincentive? Only doing the right thing and maintaining a clear conscience. Slim reasons for many of my colleagues--and a lot less money. If you are without symptoms and feel fine, and a nuclear stress test is advised by your doctor, followed by a discussion of an abnormality, insist on a discussion of exactly what is abnormal, just how abnormal, and what the alternatives might be. If you receive unsatisfactory or incomplete answers despite your best effort, it's time for another opinion.
Don't neglect your magnesium 3. March 2007 William Davis (3) Magnesium is kind of boring. So most people don't pay too much attention to it.Magnesium can be important, however. I saw an interesting phenomenon recently. A type I diabetic patient of mine (that is, an adult who developed diabetes as a child), Mitch, was experiencing wide swings in blood sugar: low low's and very high high's (300-400 mg/dl). Mitch's magnesium was only marginally low at 2.0 mEq/L. (Ranges for normal magnesium blood levels are usually 1.3–2.1 mEq/L or 0.65–1.05 mmol/L.) Note that Mitch's blood levels fall within "normal." I do not agree with these "normal" ranges. I shoot for 2.1 to 2.4 mEq/L, which I think is the truly normal range. In addition to eating plenty of raw nuts and green vegetables, Mitch began supplementing magnesium with magnesium citrate, 200 mg twice a day (our preferred supplement form). He reported that the wide swings in blood sugar were nearly eliminated. Mitch's dramatic benefit is just a great illustration of how magnesium can help control blood sugar metabolism. A type I diabetic is more sensitive to the effects, but anyone with type II (adult) diabetes, metabolic syndrome, or just a slightly high blood sugar could benefit from magnesium supplementation. There's a number of ways to accomplish getting sufficient magnesium in your daily regimen. Track Your Plaque members, Be sure to read: Your water may be killing you at http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_03-002magnesium.asp Magnesium: Water to the rescue! at http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_03-010magnesium2.asp
Third heart scan a charm 1. March 2007 William Davis (0) It struck me recently that, for many people, it's not the second but the third heart scan that more commonly shows a reduction in score. I think this is because many people's reaction to their first heart scan is "This can't be. There's no way my arteries have that much plaque." They then follow a half-hearted program to correct their patterns. When the second heart scan shows a significantly higher score, that really catches their attention. This is when they finally buckle down and give it their all.Only the occasional person will, after the first heart scan, seize full control and take their program very seriously. These tend to be highly motivated people. Don't feel too bad if your second heart scan score shows an increase. Look at it for what it represents: feedback on the adequacy of your program.
Metabolic syndrome--cured 27. February 2007 William Davis (0) Peter started out at age 59 at 248 lbs, standing 6 ft tall (BMI = 33.6!). Along with his weight, Peter had the entire panel of phenemena of the so-called "metabolic syndrome", or pre-diabetes:--Triglycerides 238 mg/dl and associated with extremes of excess VLDL and IDL--High blood pressure --Blood sugar 115 mg/dl--High c-reactive protein--Small LDL particles 99% of total LDLInterestingly, Peter's HDL was a surprisingly favorable 58 mg/dl (HDL is usually low in this syndrome). However, when broken down by size, he had nearly zero large, healthy HDL (sometimes called HDL2b). Though total HDL was favorable, most of it was simply ineffective. Peter eliminated snacks and processed foods, particularly bread; increased his reliance on healthy oils and lean proteins; incorporated soy protein; increased vegetables. He added 30 minutes of a rapid walk on a treadmill every day. He added vitamin D to achieve a blood level of 50 ng/dml. He added a magnesium supplement. Peter has lost 31 lbs. in the last year. Weight 207 lbs., BMI 28.1 (desirable <25). Blood sugar: 96 mg/dl; triglycerides: 56 mg/dl; HDL 71 mg/dl with 35% in the large fraction; small LDL 45% of total. Not perfect, but a damn site better. Control of metabolic syndrome is an achievable goal for over 90% of people, just with these simple efforts. We haven't yet had a chance to assess the effect on the progression or regression of Peter's heart scan score, but he has, at the very least, spared himself a future of diabetes and all its complications.
Heart Scan Curiosities #6 27. February 2007 William Davis (0) This is a "slice" from a normal heart scan in a 58 year old woman. Heart scan score zero. Look at the lungs, the dark areas left and right of the heart in the center. The lungs are also normal. Black represents normal density, healthy lung tissue. The white streaking is just normal lung blood vessels. This person doesn't smoke. This woman smokes a pack of cigarettes a day and has done so for 45 years ("45 pack-years"). She had a surprisingly low heart scan score (at age 64) of only 71, despite the smoking. However, look at this woman's lungs. It's a little tough to make out, since the computer graphics loses some of the resolution. But you can see the near absence of lung tissue on both sides. This is an advanced phase of the destructive lung disease, emphysema, from smoking. Even if she quit smoking today, the destroyed lung tissue never grows back. She literally has huge gaps or holes in her lungs where lung tissue used to be. Smoking is among the most destructive, terrible things you can do to your body, short of swallowing strychnine or jumping off a building. Stay as far the heck away from cigarettes as you possibly can. If you are exposed to "secondary" smoke, insist that the person never smoke in your presence. It's not the smell that destroys your lungs or causes coronary plaque (though it is indeed foul), it's the actual smoke.
Should you become a vegetarian? 24. February 2007 William Davis (0) Do you need to become a vegetarian in order to reduce your heart scan score?No. Plain and simple. We’ve had many non-vegetarians drop their scores.That said, are there still advantages to following a vegetarian diet, or some variation on the vegetarian theme?Yes, there are. Let’s put aside the moral or religious arguments in favor of not eating animals—the need to eliminate killing animals for food, elimination of suffering common in modern livestock practices, Kosher considerations, etc. (Not that there aren’t real arguments here. Our focus for this conversation is not, however, the moral dilemma, but the health argument.)Some of the most unhealthy people I’ve ever met, mostly males, are proud carnivores who boast of their prodigious capacities to eat meat. Unfortunately, it’s hard to tease out the ill-effects of excessive meat eating, since these same men also tend to be substantially overweight, smoke, drink excessively, and fail to get exercise unless their job is physically demanding. You know the type.What advantages does a vegetarian obtain? A number of studies have suggested that the reduced saturated fat, reduced exposure to parasites, as well as reduced exposure to the antibiotics and hormones now used routinely in livestock-raising practices, do indeed provide benefits to the vegetarian. Thus, vegetarians tend to be substantially thinner, experience less bowel cancer, have less diabetes and heart disease, and live longer. (If you are interested in reading or seeing more about just how inhumane modern livestock practices are, take a look at the video, "Meet Your Meat" at meat.org. Be sure not to view this after dinner.) Of course, some of the disadvantages of eating animal products diminish when free-range livestock are eaten, i.e., livestock not raised in the inhumane cramped, filthy conditions of livestock factories, but in the open, grazing or rooting freely. These animals tend to have different fat compositions and taste different. The advantages of vegetarianism, however, have blurred in recent years, since many so-called vegetarians have failed to maintain the distinction between naturally-occurring foods and processed foods. So, Ritz Crackers, Oreo cookies, whole wheat bread, and Raisin Bran fit into a vegetarian program, but they’re awful for your health. I’ll occasionally meet a self-proclaimed vegetarian who looks every bit as unhealthy as a conventionally eating American, that is, overweight, pre-diabetic person with a developing heart scan score.So it is not necessary to be vegetarian to reduce your score. You might consider vegetarianism for other reasons, such as moral considerations, or to reduce your risk for cancer. But it is not necessary to drop your heart scan score. A non-processed food diet? Now that's is worth giving serious consideration.
Let's make it a lot easier 24. February 2007 William Davis (0) The American Heart Association just released a new set of consensus guidelines on heart disease prevention in women: Evidence-Based Guidelines for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Women: 2007 Update For those of you following the Heart Scan Blog and the Track Your Plaque program, there will be little new in the guidelines. In fact, you'll wonder if the date on the front of the report should be 1987, rather than 2007. Did you know that you should exercise and eat healthy?Take a look at the list of risk factors for coronary vascular disease (CVD) listed in the report:Major risk factors for CVD, including:Cigarette smokingPoor dietPhysical inactivityObesity, especially central adiposityFamily history of premature CVD (CVD at <55>Progress: You'll notice that buried inside the list is "Evidence of subclinical vascular disease (e.g., coronary calcification)". Just a few short years ago that wouldn't have even been included.The Track Your Plaque contention is that, for the great majority of women, this list could be shortened to one item: coronary calcification. As time goes on, the people who argue and draft these guidelines will come to the realization that coronary calcification is the disease--it's not a risk for the disease, a predictor of the disease. Coronary calcification is the disease itself. The other items on the list recede way into