Cureality | Real People Seeking Real Cures

This is a frequent question from Track Your Plaque Members and others interested in improving their heart disease prevention program beyond that of simple-minded cholesterol testing.

I obtain lipoprotein testing every day on patients. I can tell you with the confidence of having done thousands of these tests that plain, old-fashioned cholesterol testing is like relying on riding a scooter to work compared to an 8-cylinder modern automobile. The scooter might get you there, but any rain, snow, or long distance to travel and you can just forget it.

All too often, lipoprotein testing uncovers abnormalities that standard cholesterol testing simply fails to uncover.

So, among the various lipoprotein tests available, which is best?

There are three commercial tests available today:

1) Gel electropheresis (GGE)--often known by its "brand" name as the Berkeley lipoprotein profile, after Berkeley HeartLabs. GGE uses a gel with an electric field applied to cause lipoproteins to migrate, based on particle size and charge.

2) Vertical auto-profile (VAP)--a form of centrifugation, or high-speed spinning of blood plasma to separate lipoprotein particles.

3) Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)--the idea of putting plasma in an NMR (also known as MRI) device to characterize blood proteins.

All three tests do an excellent job. All are competitively priced. All have validating data--lots of it--to justify their broad use (though health insurers, in their vast wisdom, would still have you believe that the tests are "experimental").

But is one better?

Having done many of all three (though least of VAP), I am partial to Liposcience's NMR. (By the way, I receive no fees from Liposcience to use their test, nor to promote it in any way.)

I believe NMR is superior in a few ways:

1) I believe that the LDL particle number is the best way to truly quantify LDL, better than apoprotein B and "direct" LDL.

2) It provides what I believe to be more accurate small LDL measures.

3) It provides intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL), a post-prandial, or after-eating, measure not available on the other two.

Perhaps I'm biased because I use the NMR most frequently. But I've used it because I felt it yielded superior, more clinically believable, data.

In truth, all three laboratories do an excellent job and you'd be served fine by obtaining any of the three. But my heart goes to NMR.

An interesting question came up from one of our Track Your Plaque Members on the Forum.

"I am now taking 9 mg of vitamin K1 and 1000 mcg of K2.

Does taking this supplement with this much K1 have a counteracting effect on the thinning/anticlotting properties of aspirin and fish oil that I also take?"

Great question (along with lots of other greater discussions we have on the Forum.)

The answer: Vitamin K should have no effect on the platelet-blocking effects of aspirin or fish oil. The majority of blood clot inhibiting effects of aspirin and fish oil arise from their ability to keep blood platelets from "clumping" (just like the TV commercials for Plavix).

Vitamin K, on the other hand, participates in the liver production of blood clotting factors (like II, VII, IX, and X, among others for you curious ones).

Thus, vitamin K-dependent clotting factors and platelet-blocking are two separate pathways to forming blood clots. Some of us refer to the difference as "red clots" from the vitamin K pathway and "white clots" from the platelet pathway, since they really do have this different physical appearance.

The vitamin K2 conversation, like that about vitamin D, is fascinating for its potential to provide the missing link between the tightly-tied fortunes of bone health and atherosclerosis. Why is someone with a high CT heart scan score far more likely to have osteoporosis? Vitamin D and K2 deficiency may provide the missing link for many people.

That's the headline I'd like to see associated with rosiglitazone, brand name Avandia.

The recent negative press, whether deserved or not, surrounding the prescription drug rosiglitazone for pre-diabetes and diabetes highlights the fact that drugs never--never--substitute for what we can achieve with lifestyle changes.

Typically, rosiglitazone reduces blood sugar a few milligrams, reduces C-reactive protein, and very modestly reduces triglycerides and its associated evil lipoprotein friends. It also causes an average weight gain of 8 lb in the first year of use.

What will weight loss achieve, especially if accomplished through dramatic reduction or elimination of processed carbohydrates and wheat products, along with fish oil supplementation, vitamin D normalization, and exercise? Extraordinary benefits, far superior to what is achievable with this drug. In fact, while rosiglitazone is a Band-Aid for this process, the lifestyle changes can represent a cure in many or most instances.

It should come as no surprise that a drug that does nothing more than increase sensitivity to insulin cannot erase the devastating effects of an unhealthy life. Take rosiglitazone but neglect exercise, don't bother with vitamin D, indulge in pretzels and breakfast cereals, gain more weight . . . It serves the drug company's agenda better than it serves health.

Dr. Steve Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic published a study that suggests that the pre-diabetes and diabetes drug, rosiglitazone, may increase likelihood of heart attack by 43%.

I say "suggests" because the analysis was something called a "meta-analysis", a re-examination of data obtained by pooling unrelated studies and reanalyzing the data. Strengths of this sort of analysis: Sometimes trends that are not evident in smaller studies finally become evident in the larger numbers of participants obtained through pooling of data. Downside: Any statistician will tell you that a meta-analysis can only suggest an association, it cannot prove it.

Nonetheless, we are talking about people's lives. As they say, if you are taking this drug, also known by the brand name, Avandia, then talk to your doctor. I think that this is sound advice, as there are a number of factors to weigh in decision making. For instance, how far along the diabetic path are you? Have you had negative experiences with other agents?

It will, unfortunately, be months to years before confirmatory evidence on this question become available. In the meantime, Nissen will accuse the drug industry of pushing drugs through the FDA approval process without full safety data. GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of Avandia, will counter with claims of weak data, the existing trials not confirming Nissen's findings, etc. We've seen it before.

My take on this is to step back and look at the broad picture. Do we need yet another reason to say that it's far better to maintain normal body weight, dramatically reduce reliance on processed carbohydrates and wheat, exercise, and following other insulin-sensitizing strategies, rather than rely on insulin-sensitizing drugs? (That's what rosiglitazone is supposed to do.) Metabolic syndrome, also known as pre-diabetes, or diabetes is present to various degrees in two thirds of all adults I meet. Nearly all of it is self-inflicted. Nearly all of it is curable with the above lifestyle strategies if undertaken early enough in the process.

A 190 lb, 5 foot 2 inch woman, or a 220 lb, 5 foot 10 inch man, both of whom are surprised that they have pre-diabetes really need to get a grip on reality and health. To me, it's no surprise that drugs do not reverse all the nasty manifestations of lifestyle gone berserk. It should also come as no surprise that the complex, chaotic physiologic mess created by metabolic syndrome and pre-diabetes is not perfectly managed by adding one drug.

Roger experienced a near-fatal heart attack 6 years ago. He survived thanks to the quick action of bystanders who initiated CPR and called 911. An emergency catheterization was performed and a stent implanted into the closed right coronary artery. But that's not why I tell Roger's story.

Since then, Roger has become comfortable with the idea that he has heart disease. His initial commitment to good nutrition and exercise has waned, as it often does in us distractable humans. So Roger gained about 30 lbs through a long winter, inactivity, eating frozen dinners, and the cookies and baked goodies his daughters made him.

As a result of the weight gain and inactivity, Roger's HDL dropped to 32 mg/dl, triglycerides rose to 211 mg/dl, blood sugar crept up into the pre-diabetic range of 116 mg/dl. Undoubtedly, small LDL was out of control beneath the surface. His tummy reflected the weight gain, flaccid and overhanging his belt.

I read Roger the riot act. I reminded him of what he had experienced and nearly didn't survive. Weight loss and a re-invigoration of his nutrition and exercise efforts was going to be crucial.

Roger listened and took it to heart. Over three months, he lost 24 lbs, a phenomenal result. However, his repeat lipid panel showed an HDL of 28 mg/dl, triglycerides 234 mg/dl, blood sugar unchanged.

"I don't get it! I lose all this weight and the number get worse?!" Roger was understandably upset after his enormous effort.

I told Roger that after a profound weight loss, lipids can go berserk for up to two months after weight has stabilized. Typically, HDL drops and triglycerides rise--the opposite of what we want. But wait another two or so months after weight has stabilized and the numbers begin to look beautiful.

Why does this crazy effect happen? I really don't know and I've never heard a satisfactory explanation for it. But it is very real and quite predictable.

The lesson: after a substantial weight loss, be patient. Check your lipid numbers too soon and you might be confused or disappointed. If you do check them, bear in mind that additional time may need to pass before you see the weight loss fully reflected.

In my previous post, Identical twins and the explosive influence of weight , we witnessed an excellent example of the profound influence of food choices and weight control on lipoproteins. The heavier twin among these 35-year old male twins (Steve) had an LDL particle number over two-fold higher than his more slender counterpart (Alfred).

The heavier twin, Steve, got here through numerous and longstanding dietary excesses: fast foods, saturated fats, sweets, processed foods. The conventional answer to Steve's lipid dilemma would be to modestly reduce his reliance on saturated fat, exercise, and limit snacks.

How far would that get Steve? Not very far at all. With regards to his high LDL particle number of 2256 nmol/l (representing an "effective" LDL cholesterol of around 225 mg/dl), it would be reduced a little, perhaps 10%.

Notice, however, that 72% of all Steve's LDL particles are small (1639/2256). This is the pattern that responds dramatically to a sharp reduction in processed carbohydrates, especially wheat-containing products.

If Steve were to eliminate all wheat products--all breads, breakfast cereals, pretzels, cookies, cakes, pasta, crackers--LDL particle number will drop dramatically, perhaps 50%, often more depending on the magnitude of weight loss. Small LDL will respond most obviously and will be sharply reduced, perhaps disappear. Incidentally, these changes might not be well reflected by the conventional calculated LDL cholesterol, since small LDL particles are well-concealed by standard measures.

Reducing corn products, white and brown rice, and potatoes would also add to the effect. But, in 2007, wheat products represent 90% of the problem for the majority of people. Reducing or eliminating wheat therefore yields the biggest effect by a long shot.

Steve therefore represents an excellent example of how reducing processed carbohydrates, esp. wheat-containing products, can yield an unexpected and paradoxical reduction in LDL cholesterol as evidenced by the highly accurate LDL particle number (or apoprotein B). Reducing saturated fat sources also helps, but it certainly will not yield the kind of results most people need. You've got to be smarter than the simple-minded conventional advice.

A Track Your Plaque member, Eugene, brought this fascinating story to my attention.

Eugene has two nephews, identical twins aged 35 years. Despite their similar personalities and appearances, somehow these two drifted apart in weight with Steve outweighing Alfred by 30 lbs.

Eugene explains:

These guy's are big not, but overly fat. Just big. One is about 30 lbs heaver than the other. They live 2 blocks apart, they ate the same (together) meal the night before the blood work. Their mother is a type 2 diabetic with a heart condition. Steve does not eat as well as his twin, junk food and a lot of processed starches.

Their results:

LDL-Particle number
Alfred 900
Steve 2256

Small LDL-P
Alfred 400
Steve 1639

HDL-C
Alfred 44
Steve 36

Triglycerides
Alfred 85
Steve 355

Metabolic Syn.
Alfred no
Steve yes

Glucose

Fasting
Alfred 93
Steve 112

1hour
Alfred 134
Steve 206

2 hour
Alfred 105
Steve 172

Identical twins begin with the very same genetic background. As these two graphically illustrate, weight can have a profound influence in the genetically susceptible.

LDL particle number alone is 250% greater in the heavier twin. The dreaded small LDL particle is over 400% worse! Look also at the dramatic differences in blood sugar.

If you ever had any doubts about the importance of excess weight and nutrition, just remind yourself of this fascinating illustration.

Thanks, Eugene.

Martin, a hospital employee, knowing that I fuss a great deal with lipids and lipoproteins, showed me his lipid panel because the result triggered a "panic value" for triglycerides at 267 mg/dl. He asked if he should go on a serious low-fat diet.

I asked Martin what he had for breakfast: a whole wheat bagel with no-added-sugar jam. Lunch: a turkey sub on whole grain bread, no mayonnaise. Snacks: baked chips, pretzels ("a low-fat snack!").

In years past, if person developed high triglycerides levels, a very low-fat diet was prescribed. Someone would come to the hospital, for instance, with abdominal pain from pancreatitis (an inflamed pancreas)due to the damaging effects of triglyceride levels >1000 mg/dl. For this reason, many people still believe that all instances of elevated triglycerides should be treated with a reduction in fat intake.

This is absolutely wrong. While a fat restriction may reduce triglycerides in genetically-programmed responses when triglycerides are >1000 mg/dl, lesser levels of high triglycerides of, say 250 or 300 mg/dl, do not respond to dietary fat restrictions as a sole strategy.

Yes, a reduction in unhealthy fats (saturated, trans, polyunsaturated) helps. But a reduction in fats of all sorts is not necessary and can, in fact, worsen the problem. We learned this lesson years ago with the Ornish diet and similar ultra low-fat approaches. When you reduce fat intake significantly to <10% of calories, triglycerides go way up. In those days, it wasn't uncommon to see triglycerides skyrocket past 200 or 300 mg/dl on these diets.

Why are triglycerides important? Triglycerides are an ingredient in creating the lipoproteins VLDL, IDL, small LDL. Elevated triglycerides trigger a drop in HDL, a shift towards small, ineffective HDL, and contribute to heightened inflammation. Higher triglycerides also tend to go hand in hand with lipoproteins that persist for extended periods (12-24 hours or longer) in the blood after a meal.

Triglycerides respond very nicely to a dramatic reduction in processed carbohydrates, especially wheat and corn. Of course, wheat is the bulk of the problem, since it has grown to occupy an enormous role in many people's diet, not uncommonly eaten 3,4, or 5 times per day in various forms, as it has in Martin's diet. Eliminating all sources of high-fructose corn syrup is also helpful, since high-fructose corn syrup shoots triglycerides way up. (Recall that high-fructose corn syrup is everywhere: ketchup, beer, low-fat or non-fat salad dressings, breads, fruit drinks, sports drinks, breakfast cereals, etc.)

Curiously, it is a fat that also powerfully reduces triglycerides in the form of fish oil. In the Track Your Plaque program, fish oil, taken at truly effective doses of 4000 mg per day or more (to provide at least 1200 mg EPA+DHA), is our number one choice after reduction of processed carbohydrates for reduction of high triglycerides.

As most anybody who takes niacin knows, it can cause a hot flushed feeling over the chest and face that is generally harmless, though quite annoying.

Many doctors are frightened by this response and will warn patients off from niacin. Some people who take niacin are so annoyed that they find it intolerable.

However, a very simple maneuver can relieve the hot flush in over 90% of instances: Drink water. Let me explain.

I usually instruct patients to take niacin at dinnertime. That way, food slows absorption modestly. I also ask them to drink water with dinner. If the flush occurs after dinner (usually 30-60 minutes later), then drinking two 8-12 oz glasses of water immediately breaks the flush within 3 minutes in the great majority of people. It's quite dramatic.

Doing this around dinner (lunch works just as well) allows sufficient time to clear the excess water from your body before bedtime and spare you the aggravation of disrupted sleep to urinate. Drinking plenty of water works most of the time. Only an occasional person will need to take a 325 mg uncoated aspirin to more fully break the flush. I generally suggest that patients keep the uncoated aspirin in reserve if the water doesn't provide relief within a few minutes.

Thankfully, the intensity of the niacin flush lessens, often disappears, with chronic use.

Why do some people develop the flush and other don't? It is believed that some people metabolize niacin more rapidly to a compound called nicotinuric acid, a niacin metabolite that causes dilation (relaxation) of skin capillaries--thus the flush. The rapidity of converting niacin to nicotinuric acid is determined genetically.

An occasional person really struggles with niacin to the point of intolerance. However, on the positive side, these people may also be "hyper-responders" to niacin, i.e., they show exagerated benefits in raising HDL, reducing small LDL, etc., from small doses such as 250 mg per day.

If you experience the hot flush of niacin, think water to put out the fire.

Followers of the Track Your Plaque program know that we place great value on having an optimistic outlook. Not only are you more likely to be happy and successful in life, you are also far more likely to drop your CT heart scan score. Virtually everyone who has succeeded in dropping their heart scan score dramatically has been an optimist, including our most recent record holder who dropped his score an astounding 51%.

But what if you are a pessimist, someone who gripes and complains about everything, sees the bad in other people, blames others for anything and everything that goes wrong--yet you still desire to drop your heart scan score? Are you a lost cause? Should you just give up?

I don't think so. I will admit that, of all the hurdles we encounter in trying to purposefully stop or reduce heart scan scores, overcoming a pessimistic attitude is probably the toughest. Tougher than being overweight, maybe tougher than even Lp(a).

Perhaps there's a solution in two years of psychotherapy sessions with a counselor, or exploring unresolved childhood conflicts with a psychologist, or an antidepressant drug. Pessimism is, after all, a deeply-ingrained pattern of behavior, something that can't be changed just by suggesting it or simple self-realization.

The closest thing I know of to a quick and relatively easy solution for converting a pessimist to an optimist is very simple:

Do good things for other people.

Something peculiar happens to the pessimist when he/she starts to help others. They are less threatened by other people (since much griping is really fear in disguise), begin to see others as vulnerable creatures who could use their help rather than sources of annoyance, and a kinship with others is acquired.

Doing good things can mean giving blood, donating money to the Sierra Club or other charity, volunteering with the Boy Scouts, tipping the hard working waitress trying to pay for college more generously, paying compliments to people around you, helping a neighbor carry the groceries when you see him struggling, showing a child how to make a paper airplane . . .

Good deeds can take a million different forms. But it must involve you personally. It can't mean delegating a helpful activity to your spouse. You must also do it frequently, not just once a year. It doesn't have to cost money, it doesn't have to involve a lot of time (though your personal bodily involvement does yield the greatest return in optimism). These are things anyone can do and help make the world around you a little better.

If taking these small steps towards an optimistic attitude are too much for you, then I would worry that you are destined to fail in dropping your heart scan score.

Carbohydrate intolerance comes in many shades and colors, shapes and sizes.

I call all of its varieties the Carbohydrate Intolerance Syndrome, or CIS. (Not to be confused with CSI, or Crime Scene Investigation . . . though, come to think of it, perhaps there are some interesting parallels!)

At its extreme, it is called type II diabetes, in which any carbohydrate generates an extravant increase in blood sugar, followed by the domino effect of increased triglycerides, reduction in HDL, creation of small LDL, heightened inflammation, etc. and eventually to kidney disease, coronary atherosclerosis, neuropathies, etc.

An intermediate form of carbohydrate intolerance is called metabolic syndrome, or pre-diabetes. These people, for the most part, look and act like diabetics, though their reaction to carbohydrate intake is not as bad. Blood sugar, for instance, might be 125 mg/dl fasting, 160 mg/dl after eating. The semi-arbitrary definition of metabolic syndrome includes at least three of the following: HDL <40 mg/dl in men, <50 mg/dl in women; triglycerides 150 mg/dl or greater; BP 135/80 or greater; waist circumference >40 inches in men, >35 inches in women; fasting glucose >100 mg/dl.

This is where the conventional definitions stop: Either you are diabetic or have metabolic syndrome, or you have nothing at all.

Unfortunately, this means that the millions of people with patterns not severe enough to match the standard definition of metabolic syndrome are often neglected.

How about Kevin?

Kevin, a 56 year old financial planner, is 5 ft 7 inches, 180 lbs (BMI 28.2). His basic measures:

HDL 36 mg/dl
Triglycerides 333 mg/dl
BP 132/78
Waist circumference 34 inches
Blood sugar 98 mg/dl

Kevin meets the criteria for metabolic syndrome on only two of the five criteria and therefore does not "qualify" for the diagnosis.

Kevin's basic lipids showed LDL 170 mg/dl, HDL 36 mg/dl, triglycerides 333 mg/dl.

But take a look at his underlying lipoprotein patterns (NMR):

LDL particle number 2231 nmol/L (equivalent to a "true" LDL of 223 mg/dl)
Small LDL 1811 nmol/l
Large HDL 0.0 mg/dl

In other words, small LDL constitutes 81% of all LDL particles (1811/2231), a severe pattern. Large HDL is the healthy, protective fraction and Kevin has none. These are high-risk patterns for heart disease. These, too, are patterns of carbohydrate intolerance.

Foods that trigger small LDL and reduction in healthy, large HDL include sugars, wheat, and cornstarch. Kevin is carbohydrate-intolerant, although he lacks the (fasting) blood sugar aspect of carbohydrate intolerance. But he shows all the underlying lipoprotein and other metabolic phenomena associated with carbohydrate intolerance.

We could also cast all three conditions under the umbrella of "insulin resistance." But I prefer Carbohydrate Intolerance Syndrome, or CIS, since it immediately suggests the basic underlying cause: eating carbohydrates, especially those that trigger rapid and substantial surges in blood sugar.

CIS is the Disease of the Century, judging by the figures (both numbers and humans) we are seeing. It will dominate healthcare in its various forms for many years to come.

The first treatment for the Carbohydrate Intolerance Syndrome? Some would say the TZD class of drugs like Avandia. Others would say a DASH or TLC (American Heart Association) diet. How about liposuction, twice-daily Byetta injections, or even the emerging class of drugs to manipulate leptin and adiponectin? How do "heart healthy" foods like Cheerios and Cocoa Puffs fit into this? (Don't believe me? The American Heart Association says they're heart healthy!)

The first treatment for the Carbohydrate Intolerance Syndrome is elimination of carbohydrates, except those that come from raw nuts and seeds, vegetables, occasional real fruit (not those green fake grapes), wine, and dark chocolates.

Maggie had been doing well on her program, enjoying favorable lipids near our 60-60-60 targets (HDL 60 mg/dl or greater, LDL 60 mg/dl or less, triglycerides 60 mg/dl or less). Last fall, her last set of values were:

Total cholesterol: 149 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol: 67 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol: 73 mg/dl
Triglycerides: 43 mg/dl

The holidays, as with most people, involved a frenzy of indulgent eating: Christmas cookies, cakes, pies, stuffing, potatoes, candies, etc.

Maggie returned to the office 6 pounds heavier with these values:

Total cholesterol: 210 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol: 124 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol: 57 mg/dl
Triglycerides: 144 mg/dl

In other words, holiday indulgences caused an increase in LDL cholesterol, a reduction in HDL, an increase in triglycerides, an increase in total cholesterol.

What happened?

At first glance, many of my colleagues would interpret this as fat indulgence and/or a "need" for statin drug therapy.

Having done thousands of lipoprotein panels, I can tell you that, beneath the surface, the following has occurred:

--Overindulgence in carbohydrates from the goodies triggered triglyceride (actually VLDL) formation in the liver, released into the blood.
--Increased triglycerides and VLDL triggered a boom in conversion of large LDL to small LDL (since triglycerides are required to form small LDL particles) via cholesteryl-ester transfer protein (CETP) activity.
--Increased triglycerides and VLDL interacted with HDL particles, causing "remodeling" of HDL particles to the less desirable, less protective small particles, which do not persist as long in the blood, resulting in a reduction of HDL.

The critical factor is carbohydrate intake. This triggered a domino effect that is often misintepreted as excessive fat intake or a genetic predisposition. It is nothing of the kind.

I discussed this phenomenon with Maggie. She now knows to not overindulge in the holiday snacks in future and will revert promptly back to her 60-60-60 values.

I borrowed this from the enormously clever Dr. BG at The Animal Pharm Blog.

How to Give Yourself Hashimoto's Thyroiditis: 101

--lack of sunlight/vitamin D/indoor habitation
--mental stress
--more mental stress
--sleep deprivation... (excessive mochas/lattes at Berkeley cafes)
--excessive 'social' calendar
--inherent family history of autoimmune disorders (who doesn't??)
--wheat, wheat, and more wheat ingestion ('comfort foods' craved in times of high cortisol/stress, right? how did I know the carbs were killing me?)
--lack of nutritious food containing EPA DHA, vitamin A, sat fats, minerals, iodine, etc
--lack of play, exercise, movement (or ?overtraining perhaps for Oprah's case)
--weight gain -- which begins an endless self-perpetuating vicous cycle of all the above (Is it stressful to balloon out for no apparent reason? YES)

If you haven't done so already, take a look at Animal Pharm you will get a real kick out of Dr. BG's quick-witted take on things.

We are systematically looking for low thyroid (hypothyroidism) in everyone and findings oodles of it, far more than I ever expected.

Much of the low thyroid phenomena is due to active or previous Hashimoto's thyroiditis, the inflammatory process that exerts destructive effects on the delicate thyroid gland. It is presently unclear how much is due to iodine deficiency in this area, though iodine supplementation by itself (i.e., without thyroid hormone replacement) has not been yielding improved thyroid measures.

I find this bothersome: Is low thyroid function the consequence of direct thyroid toxins (flame retardants like polybrominated diphenyl ethers, pesticide residues in vegetables and fruits, bisphenol A from polycarbonate plastics) or indirect toxins such as wheat via an autoimmune process (similar to that seen in celiac disease)?

I don't know, but we've got to deal with the thyroid-destructive aftermath: Look for thyroid dysfunction, even in those without symptoms, and correct it. This has become a basic tenet of the Track Your Plaque approach for intensive reduction of coronary risk.

Heart health without a 12" incision

Heart health for less than $44,483 (Cost of a coronary stent according to the American Heart Association 2008 Update)

Track Your Plaque: A drug-free zone

The Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) of the Institute of Medicine is charged with setting the values for the Recommended Daily Allowances of various essential nutrients. However, when it comes to vitamin D, the FNB decided that "evidence is insufficient to develop an RDA and [an Adequate Intake, AI] is set at a level assumed to ensure nutritional adequacy."

The National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements lists the AI's for various groups of people:

14-18 years
Male 200 IU
Female 200 IU

19-50 years
Male 200 IU
Female 200 IU

51-70 years
Male 400 IU
Female 400 IU

71+ years
Male 600 IU
Female 600 IU

A reconsideration is apparently being planned in near-future that will (hopefully) incorporate the newest clinical data on vitamin D.

My question: Who cares what the FNB decides? Let me explain.

I monitor blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D to assess the 1) starting level of vitamin D without supplementation, and 2) levels while on supplementation, preferably every 6 months (during sunny weather, during cold weather). I have done for the past 3 years in over 1000 people.

The requirement for vitamin D dose in adults, in my experience, ranges from as low as 1000 units per day to as high as 20,000 units per day, rarely more. The vast majority of women require 5000 units per day, males 6000 units per day to maintain a blood level in the desirable range. (I aim for 60-70 ng/ml.) A graph of the distribution of vitamin D needs in my area (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) is a bell curve, a curve more heavily weighted towards the upper vitamin D dose range.

Need for vitamin D to achieve the same blood level is influenced by age, sex, body size, race, presence or absence of a gallbladder, as well as other factors. But needs vary, even among similar people. For instance, a 50-year old woman weighing 140 lbs might need 4000 units per day to achieve a blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D of 65 ng/ml. Another 50-year old woman weighing 140 lbs might need 8000 units to achieve the same level, and 4000 units might increase her level to only 38 ng/ml. Two similar women, very different vitamin D needs. The differences can be striking.

Being a hormone--not a vitamin, as it was incorrectly labeled--vitamin D needs to be tightly regulated. We should have neither too little nor too much. I would liken it to thyroid hormones, which need to be tightly regulated for ideal health.

Now the FNB, in light of new data, wants to set new AI's, or even RDA's, for vitamin D for the U.S. This is an impossible--impossible--task. There is no way a broad policy can be crafted that serves everyone. It is impossible to state that all men or women, categorized by age, require X units vitamin D. This is pure folly and it is misleading.

The only rational answer for the FNB to provide is to declare that:

It is not possible to establish the precise need for vitamin D in a specific individual because of the multiplicity of factors, only some of which are known, that determine vitamin D needs. Individual need can only be determined by assessing the blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D prior to initiation of replacement and periodically following replacement to assess the adequacy of replacement dose. Continuing reassessment is recommended (e.g., every 6-12 months), as needs change with weight, lifestyle, and age.

Sure, it adds around $100-150 per year per person for lab testing to assess vitamin D levels. But the health gains made--reduced fractures, reduced incidence of diabetes, reduced colon, breast, and prostate cancer, less depression, reduced heart attack and heart procedures--will more than compensate.

We use Armour thyroid almost exclusively. I take it myself.

I am thoroughly convinced that, for at least 70% of people requiring thyroid replacement, the added T3 component makes a world of difference compared to isolated T4: More energy, greater alertness, better mental clarity, better weight loss, larger effects on lipoprotein(a).

However, there are substantial price disparities in different pharmacies.

For instance, in Milwaukee, a one month supply of 1 grain (60 mg) tablets costs:

Walgreen's: $36.00

Walmart: $9.54

That's a considerable price difference of nearly 400%. It therefore always pays to do a little bit of shopping.

If you want information on how prescription drugs fit into your life, then go to WebMD.

But, if you are looking for information that cuts through the bullcrap, is untainted by the heavy-handed tactics of the drug industry, or doesn't support the "a heart catheterization for everyone" mentality, then don't go there.

A Heart Scan Blog reader turned up this gem on the WebMD site:

Should I have a coronary calcium scan to check for heart disease?

In their report, they list some reasons why a heart scan should not be obtained:

Most of the time, a physical exam and other tests can give your doctor enough information about your risk for heart disease.

You've got to be kidding me. What tests are they talking about?

EKG? An EKG is a crude test that tells us virtually nothing about the coronary arteries or risk for heart attack. It is helpful for heart rhythm disorders and other abnormalities, but virtually useless for coronary disease unless a heart attack is underway or has already occurred.

Cholesterol? What level of cholesterol tells you whether you have heart disease? Tim Russert, for instance, had the same cholesterol values 5 years before his death as on the day of his death. How would cholesterol have told his doctor that heart disease was present? Does an LDL cholesterol of 180 mg/dl tell you that someone has heart disease, while a value of 130 mg/dl does not?

Stress test? You mean like the normal stress test Bill Clinton had 3 months before his near-fatal collapse? Stress tests are a gauge of coronary flow, not of coronary atherosclerosis. Huge amounts of coronary plaque can be present while a stress test--flow--remains normal.

No, a physical exam does not uncover hidden heart disease. The annual physical is, in fact, a miserable failure for detection of hidden heart disease.

You already know that your risk for heart disease is low or high. The test works best in people who are at medium risk but have no symptoms.

This bit of fiction comes from a compromise statement in the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association "consensus" document detailing the role of heart scans in heart disease detection. Because conventional thinkers don't like the idea of very early detection in seemingly "low risk" people, nor do they like the idea of diabetics and smokers getting a heart scan because it's "obvious" that they are already at high risk, the middle ground was taken: Scan only people at "intermediate risk."

What the heck is "intermediate risk"? Are you intermediate risk?

In real life, using standard criteria (e.g., Framingham scoring) to decide who is low-, intermediate-, or high-risk fails to identify over 1/3 of people with heart disease, while subjecting many without heart disease (plaque) to needless treatment (meaning statins, since that's the only real preventive treatment on most doc's armamentarium).

Another fact: Heart scans are quantitative, not just normal or abnormal. Your heart scan score could be 5, it could be 150, it could be 500, or 5000---it makes a world of difference. The risk of someone with a score of 5000 is at very different risk than someone with a score of 5. It also provides much greater precision in determining a specific individual's risk.

The test could give a high score even if your arteries aren't blocked. This might lead to extra tests that you don't need.

This is true--if you doctor has no idea what he's doing.

This is like saying that you should never take your car to the repair shop because all mechanics are crooks. If you have an unscrupulous cardiologist who tells you that your heart scan score of 25 means you are a "walking time bomb" and heart catheterization is necessary to determine whether you "need" a stent . . . well, this is no different than the shady mechanic who advises you that your car's engine needs to be rebuilt for $3000, when all you really needed was a few new spark plugs.

Coronary plaque is coronary plaque, and all coronary plaque has potential for rupture (heart attack)--even if it doesn't block flow. This is true at a score of 10, or 100, or 1000--all plaque is potentially rupture-prone, though the more plaque you have, the greater the likelihood.

Not all blocked arteries have calcium. So you could get a low calcium score and still be at risk.

They're missing the point: ANY calcium score carries risk, so a low score should not be interpreted as having no risk. But, just because a procedure like stenting or bypass surgery is not necessary to restore flow, it does not mean that risk for plaque rupture is not present--it is.

Any heart scan score should be taken seriously, meaning sufficient reason to engage in a program of heart disease prevention.

Although not perfect, coronary calcium scoring remains the easiest, most accessible, and least expensive means for identifying and quantifying coronary atherosclerosis--whether or not WebMD and drug industry money endorse them.

The media outlets are gushing with the "research"/marketing spinoff of the JUPITER trial, an analysis conducted by Dr. Erica Spatz of Yale University, that suggests that statin use should be expanded to many millions more Americans.

USA Today: Study: 11M more should get statins

MedPage: JUPITER Findings Could Boost Statin Use by 20%

Health Day: Millions More Americans Might Be Placed on Statins

WebMD: More May Benefit From Cholesterol Drugs: Study Shows More Would Qualify for Statin Treatment if Levels of C-Reactive Protein Are Considered

You may recall that the JUPITER trial (discussed previously in a Heart Scan Blog post) studied the cardiovascular event risk in people with "normal" LDL cholesterols (calculated, of course, not measured) of 130 mg/dl or less, along with increased c-reactive protein, a crude inflammatory measure, of 2.0 mg/dl or greater. A 54% (relative) reduction in cardiovascular events occured in the group taking Crestor 20 mg per day.

What I see is a confluence of events that have brought us to the "statin drugs are necessary for everybody" mentality:

--The low-fat diet advice of the last 40 years has increased non-fat or low-fat foods that increase LDL, since removing fat from the diet provokes small LDL particle production and increases the inflammatory measure, c-reactive protein (CRP).

--The proliferation of "healthy whole grains" in the diet have also caused an enormous boom in small LDL particles, which is interpreted to the uninformed as "high cholesterol." It has also provoked CRP substantially.

--The advice to reduce salt intake has brought a broad re-emergence of iodine deficiency. When thyroid hormone production flags due to lack of iodine, LDL cholesterol (both large and small) increase.

--Our lives, which are increasingly conducted indoors, have worsened the already substantial vitamin D deficiency. While deficiency of vitamin D primarily reduces HDL cholesterol and increases triglycerides, it can also cause an increase in small LDL and a large increase in CRP.

In other words, a collection of events have converged to provide the appearance of high LDL cholesterol and high CRP. This creates the appearance of a "need" for statin drugs. The JUPITER trial now exploits both the LDL-reducing and CRP-decreasing effects of statins.

I view the foisting of Crestor via the JUPITER argument on the public as taking full advantage of the helpless situation many Americans find themselves in: Reduce fat intake, eat more healthy whole grains and . . . cholesterol and CRP skyrocket! "You need Crestor! See, I told you it was genetic," says the doctor after attending the nice AstraZeneca-sponsored drug dinner.

The notion of using a drug like Crestor to suppress inflammatory patterns is absurd. There are far better, easier, cheaper ways to achieve this goal, along with dramatic reduction in cardiovascular risk. But, to the ignorant, the helpless, or non-compliant with real change in diet and lifestyle, then Crestor does serve a purpose.

I can only hope that the excessive pushing of statin drugs on the public will sooner or later trigger a revolt.

Please be aware of the ignorant propagating information they have no business talking about.

This is one such example, a newsletter from pop exercise guru, Denise Austin.

Although I'm sure she means well, I have a problem with people who have little to no experience acting as experts, often simply repeating something they heard or read somewhere else. This has become particular problem with the internet, in which bad information can get repeated thousands of times, gaining a veil of "truth" through its repetition. I don't mean to pick specifically on Ms. Austin, since she joins a growing rank of pseudo-experts on vitamin D and other topics, but she provides a good example of how far wrong mainstream information can be.

Simple Steps
Do Your D!

Calcium often gets all the glory when it comes to bone health. But calcium wouldn't benefit your bones much without its partner, vitamin D!

Why? Vitamin D helps your body absorb calcium and keeps your bones strong; without enough vitamin D, the bones become weak and brittle, a condition called rickets in children, and osteomalacia in adults. Adults from 19 to 50 need 200 IU (international units) per day, while those from 51 to 70 need 400 IU daily. Those over 70 need 600 IU per day.

Unfortunately, not too many foods contain vitamin D naturally. (Tuna and sardines canned in oil are exceptions.) The good news is that many foods are now regularly fortified with vitamin D, including milk, some yogurts, margarines, and cereals. You can check the Nutrition Facts panel on packages and containers to see which products contain vitamin D. It should be listed after vitamins A and C, along with the percentage of the Daily Value that a serving of the food contains. The Daily Value (a standardized amount) for vitamin D is 400 IU, so if your milk has 25 percent of the Daily Value, it provides 100 IU per serving.

Your skin can also make vitamin D using sunlight — you need about a half hour of exposure to the midday sun twice a week to make enough. However, because of the increasing incidence of skin cancer in recent years, many experts are wary about recommending sun exposure.

So take a closer look at milk, yogurt, cereal, and margarine selections when you're doing your weekly shopping, and stock up on brands that are fortified with vitamin D. Challenge yourself to consume one source of vitamin D at least three days in the coming week! If you cannot eat or do not like any foods that contain vitamin D or are fortified with it, talk with your health care provider ASAP about taking a supplement. Your bones will thank you for it!

Let me list the mistakes in this piece:

Adults from 19 to 50 need 200 IU (international units) per day, while those from 51 to 70 need 400 IU daily. Those over 70 need 600 IU per day.

This is the same non-information that was the advice originally offered by the Food and Nutrition Board based on a best guesstimate due to lack of data. It is clear from newer data that doses required for full restoration of vitamin D are in the thousands of units. (My personal dose for full restoration of vitamin judged by serum levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D is 8000 units per day.)

The information coming from the Food and Nutrition Board is about as good as the information coming from the USDA (you know, that "government" agency meant to represent the interests of ConAgra, Cargill, and Big Farming) and the American Heart Association (that represents consensus opinion from data 20 years out of date and now arm-in-arm with Big Food like General Mills, Kraft, and Nabisco). These agencies and the advice they offer has, over the past few years, become increasingly irrelevant and outdated. It is the Information Age, in which ulterior motives are becoming more readily exposed, yet they still operate by the rules of the Industrial Age and deliver a message that serves their own purposes.

Ms. Austin fell for it.

The good news is that many foods are now regularly fortified with vitamin D, including milk, some yogurts, margarines, and cereals.

First of all, what is a "diet expert" doing advocating industrial foods? Cereals, in particular, are among the worst foods on the supermarket shelves, whether or not they are fortified. Candy bars can be fortified, too; that doesn't make them any better for you.

The vitamin D added to these foods is, more often than not, the ergocalcferol, or D2, form that is woefully ineffective. And the dose added is trivial, usually in the 100-200 unit range per serving. The same goes for the milk, an inadequate source that we don't even factor into total intakes because of the low quantity.

Your skin can also make vitamin D using sunlight — you need about a half hour of exposure to the midday sun twice a week.

Nope. This might be true for a young person below age 30 in a southern environment. It is NOT true for the majority of people in northern climates and anyone over age 30 or 40, since we lose most of the capacity to activate vitamin D in the skin as we age. A deep, dark Florida tan does not necessarily mean that vitamin D has been activated. See A tan does not equal vitamin D. Here in Wisconsin, where, despite this darn cold winter, does enjoy wonderfully warm and beautiful summers, the average vitamin D dose need ranges from 4000-8000 units per day in summer, slightly more in winter.

By the way, it is not calcium that is instrumental to bone health. It is vitamin D. Calcium is the passive bricks and mortar of bones, while vitamin D is the bricklayer, the determinant of calcium's fate, the master control of bone health. Calcium supplementation becomes almost immaterial when vitamin D is restored.

I praise Ms. Austin for her hard work, trying to help fat Americans lose weight. But please ignore her advice on vitamin D, along with the numbing repetition of this mis-information that will likely propagate from other exercise gurus, dietitians, and pseudoexperts.

Kurt, a 50-year old businessman with a heart scan score of 323, had a :

--Conventional (calculated) LDL of 128 mg/dl
--Real measured LDL 241 mg/dl.

Laurie, a 53-year old woman who underwent a coronary bypass operation last year (before I met her), had a:

--Conventional LDL of 142 mg/dl
--Real measured LDL was 85 mg/dl.

(By "real, measured" LDL, I'm referring to LDL particle number in units of nmol/L obtained through NMR lipoprotein testing and dividing by 10, or just dropping the last digit to convert the value to mg/dl. This technique was arrived at by comparing the population distributions of these two parameters, LDL particle number and calculated LDL. This is the gold standard in my view. Similar numbers can be obtained by measuring apoprotein B, direct LDL, or calculated non-HDL, with diminishing reliability from first to last.)

In other words, Kurt's conventional LDL underestimated real LDL by 88%. Laurie's conventional LDL overestimated real LDL by 40%.

Interestingly, Laurie's doctor had insisted she take Lipitor for a high LDL cholesterol. Her real LDL was, in fact, low to begin with and benefits of a statin drug would be little to none. (Remember, in our Track Your Plaque approach, multiple other treatments are included, such as omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, vitamin D normalization, and wheat elimination, strategies that yield benefits that others expect to obtain with statins.) Laurie's real cause of her heart disease proved to have nothing to do with LDL cholesterol, but involved lipoprotein(a) and thyroid issues.

Kurt proved to have a severe preponderance of small LDL particles--the worst kind of LDL, while Laurie had none--a benign pattern.

Then how can anyone make sense of the conventional, calculated LDL cholesterol that is generally (95% of the time) provided? If accuracy can stretch to plus or minus 80% . . . you can't. Conventional LDL is a miserably inaccurate number. The problem is that obtaining a superior number requires a step or two more testing and insight, something most busy primary care doc's simply don't have in the midst of a day filled with arthritis, bronchitis, diarrhea, belly aches, and seborrhea.

Yet conventional--I call it "fictitious"--LDL serves as the basis for this $27 billion (annual revenues) industry selling statin drugs.

This is meant to be neither an argument in favor of nor against statin drugs. However, it is plain as day that any study designed to reduce LDL cholesterol will be hopelessly clouded by calculated LDL imprecision. A calculated LDL of, say, 143 mg/dl might really be 187 mg/dl, or it might be 74 mg/dl--you can't tell by looking just at LDL. Yet billions of dollars of research and billions of dollars of healthcare costs are based on the treatment of this number.

This reminds me of the mark-to-market accounting magic that helped topple Wall Street.

I don't think that the statin world is poised for such a huge downfall. But I do see this as a source of enormous dilution of the effects of statin drugs. People who barely stand to benefit get the drugs, while others who might truly benefit are treated inadequately. It provides fuel to the growing idea that reducing LDL cholesterol fails to truly provide benefit.

I am no lover of statin drugs nor drugs in general. But I am a fan of knowing the truth. Despite my bashing of the drug industry (and make no mistake: the drug industry is a cutthroat, profit-seeking, do-anything-to-increase-sales industry), I do believe that there is a role for statin drugs (though far smaller than $27 billion per year). But the usual method of selecting people for treatment is pure fiction. The ATP-III cholesterol treatment guidelines? An anemic attempt to apply structure to meaningless values.

You and I do not need to subscribe to this sort of non-quantitative nonsense.

It really struck me today that it's the people who've chosen to compromise their prevention program who end up with trouble--heart procedures, heart attack, even heart failure.

Take Bob, for example. Bob is 73 years old and had a bypass operation in 2000. The procedure went well and Bob enjoyed 6 years of seemingly trouble-free life. Bob had a seriously low HDL cholesterol for which he as taken a modest dose of niacin, but was unwilling to do much more. His HDL cholesterol was thererefore "stalled" at around 40 mg. (We aim for 60 mg or greater.) We talked repeatedly about the options for increasing HDL but Bob was content with his results. After all, since his bypass operation, he'd felt well and could do all he wanted without physical limitation.

But Bob underwent a stress test for surveillance purposes (which we routinely do 5 or more years after bypass surgery). The test was markedly abnormal with two major areas of poor blood flow to his heart (signalling potential heart attack in future). Bob ended up getting 5 stents to salvage two bypass grafts, both of which showed signs of substantial degeneration.

I've seen this scenario repeatedly: A person is unwilling to go the extra mile to obtain perfection in lipid/lipoprotein patterns, lifestyle changes, and taking the basic, required supplements. Compromises eventually catch up to you in the form of another heart attack, more procedures, heart failure, physical disability, even death.

The message: Don't draw compromises in heart disease prevention. Coronary plaque is a chronic process. It will take advantage of you if you ever let your guard down.

Of the patients I saw in my office yesterday, virtually EVERYONE had small LDL.

Small LDL is emerging as an extraordinarily prevalent lipoprotein pattern that drives coronary plaque growth. Previous estimates have put small LDL as affecting only 20-30% of people with coronary disease. However, in my experience in the last few years, I would estimate that greater than 80% of people with measurable coronary plaque have small LDL.

If you have a heart scan score >zero, chances are you have it, too.

I call small LDL a "modern" disease because it has skyrocketed in prevalence recently because of the great surge in inactivity in Americans.

When's the last time you walked to the grocery store and back, lugging two bags of groceries? How many years has it been since you've push-mowed your lawn? All the small conveniences of life have permeated further and further into our activities. Most of us spend the great majority of our day right where you are now--on your duff.

On the bright side, small LDL in most people is reducable by simply getting up and going. But the old teaching of 30 minutes of activity per day is now outdated. This was true when the other hours of your life included physical activities, like housework or a moderately active job. However, if the other 23 1/2 hours of your day are sedentary, then 30 minutes a day won't do it. An hour or more of activity, whether exercise or physical labor of some variety will get you better small LDL-suppressing results.

For most people with small LDL, fish oil and niacin are also necessary to fully suppress small LDL to the Track Your Plaque goal of <10 mg/dl.

If you need better convincing that vitamin D is among the most underappreciated but crucial vitamins for health, see Russell Martin's review of vitamin D and its role in cancer prevention. You'll find it in March, 2006 Life Extension Magazine or their www.LEF.org website at:

http://search.lef.org/cgi-src-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1308&query=vitamin%20d&hiword=VITAM%20VITAMER%20VITAMERS%20VITAMI%20VITAMINA%20VITAMINAS%20VITAMINC%20VITAMIND%20VITAMINE%20VITAMINEN%20VITAMINES%20VITAMINIC%20VITAMINK%20VITAMINS%20d%20vitamin%20

Our preliminary experience over the past year suggests that vitamin D may be the crucial missing link in many people's plaque control program. We've had a handful of people who, despite an otherwise perfect program (LDL<60, HDL>60, etc.; vigorous exercise, healthy food selection, etc.--I mean perfect)continued to show plaque growth. The rate of growth was slower than the natural expected rate of 30% per year, but still frightening rates of 14-18% per year--until we added vitamin D. All of a sudden, we saw dramatic regression of 7-25% in 6 months to a year.

This does not mean that vitamin D all by itself regresses plaque. I believe it means that vitamin D exerts a "permissive" effect, allowing all the other treatments (fish oil, LDL reduction, HDL raising, correction of small LDL, etc.) to exert their full benefit. So please don't stop everything and just take D. This will not work. However, adding vitamin D to your program on top of the basic Track Your Plaque approach--that's the best way I know of.

A recent headline from MSNBC by Robert Bazell reads:

NEW YORK - Angioplasty, bypass surgery and cholesterol-lowering medications are among the many interventions that have brought a sharp decrease in heart disease deaths in recent years. But, as Dr. Sharon Hayes of the Mayo Clinic points out, there is one big problem.

“The death rates in women have not declined as much as they have in men,” she says.

The piece goes on to suggest that women are getting short-ended in the diagnosis of heart symptoms and heart attack. The solution: More testing to assess the need for procedures like bypass.

This is typical of the device and medication-dominated media consciousness: More procedures, more medication, more devices. Who's paying for advertising, after all? The money at stake is huge. But is this what you want?

Don't be swayed by media reporters with limited understanding of the real issues (at best), consciousness of who's paying for advertising (at worst). Yes, heart disese is often underestimated or misdiagnosed in women. The answer is better detection earlier in life followed by efforts to halt the process--effective, safe treatments for people's benefit, not just profit.

A frequent conversation point among my patients, as well as participants in the www.cureality.com program, is "Are cholesterol medications really necessary?"

No, they are not. What IS necessary is to correct all manifest and hidden causes of coronary plaque. Among these causes, in my view, is LDL cholesterol of 60 mg/dl or greater. There are many other causes of coronary plaque--e.g., small LDL particles, unrecognized hypertension, Lp(a), hidden diabetic patterns, etc.--but reducing LDL to 60 mg is still an important part of a plaque-reversing effort.

Insofar as we wish to get LDL to this goal, the statin cholesterol drugs like Lipitor, Zocor, Crestor, etc. may play a role. However, they should only be considered after a full effort dietary program is pursued. Don't follow the American Heart Association's diet unless you want to fail. It's nonsense.

For a more detailed discussion of how to use nutrition and nutritional supplements to reduce LDL cholesterol, go to www.lef.org, the website for the Life Extension Foundation. I wrote an article for their magazine called "Cholesterol and Statin Drugs: Separating Hype from Reality". You'll find the article at http://search.lef.org/cgi-src-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1295&query=davis%20cholesterol%20natural&hiword=CHOLESTEROLA%20CHOLESTEROLS%20DAVI%20DAVID%20DAVIE%20DAVIES%20DAVIN%20DAVIO%20DAVISON%20DAVISS%20DAVIT%20NATURALBASED%20NATURALES%20NATURALIZED%20NATURALLY%20NATURALS%20NATURE%20NATURES%20cholesterol%20davis%20natural%20.)

Can your plaque-reversal efforts succeed without statin drugs? It depends on your causes. For instance, someone with small LDL and Lp(a) only may do great on our basic program and then add niacin. Unfortunately, another person with a starting LDL cholesterol of 240 mg/dl--sky high--will have more success with these drugs.

Believe me, I am no blind supporter of drug companies and their flagrantly profit-seeking practices which, in my view, are cut-throat, shoving anyone and anything out of their way to increase profits and market share. I share many of Dr. Dave Warnarowski's views on how vicious their tactics can be; see his recent Blog post at http://www.drdavesbest.com/blog/ called "I smell a rat".

Nonetheless, the deep and well-funded research of the pharmaceutical industry does yield some useful tools. You don't have to love the insect exterminator, but if your house is being eaten by termites, his services can be useful. Same thing with these drugs. Useful--not the complete answer, not even close, but nonetheless useful in the right situations. Sometimes antibiotics are necessary, even life saving. That's how cholesterol drugs are, too.

Take it all in the proper perspective. Your goal is not cholesterol reduction, per se, but plaque control, preferably reversal.

Ever hear of "polypharmacy"? That's when someone takes too many medicines. People will have lists of 15-20 prescription medicines, for instance, with crazy interactions and oodles of side-effects.

Well, how about "poly-supplments"? That's when someone takes a large number of nutritional supplements.

Let me tell you about a 45 year old man I met.

In an effort to rid himself of risk for heart disease that he felt was likely shared with his family (brother and father diagnosed with heart attacks in their late 40s), Steve followed a program of nutritional supplementation. You name it, he took it: hawthorne, anti-oxidant mixtures, vitamins C, E, B-complex, saw palmetto, 7-keto DHEA, velvet deer antler, gingko biloba, policosanol, chronium picolinate, green tea, pine bark extract, St. John's Wort, CoEnzyme Q10, papain and other digestive enzymes...He became a distributor for a nutritional supplement company to allow him to afford his own extraordinary program.

To satisfy himself that he had indeed "cured" himself of heart disease, he got himself a CT heart scan. His score: 470, in th 99th percentile. Steve's heart attack risk based on this score was around 10% per year. High risk, no question.

For weeks after his scan, Steve admitted walking around in a daze, not knowing what to do. Years of telling himself that he had effectively dealt with his heart disease risk, now all down the drain.

When we met, I persuaded him that to think that this collection of supplements would reverse heart disease was magical thinking. We trimmed his list down to the essentials and got him on the right track.

Heart disease is controllable and reversible, but not this way. Don't fool yourself into thinking that some collection of supplements will be enough to stamp out your heart disease risk. Just like taking an antibiotic when you don't have an infection achieves nothing, so does taking the wrong supplements.

CT heart scans can mean different things to different people.

What does a heart scan mean to you? There are several possibilities:

1) A way of reducing uncertainty in your future.

2) A tool to crystallize your commitment to health.

3) A device to help you track how successful your heart disease prevention program is.

4) A trick to get you in the hospital.

5) A moneymaking tool for unscrupulous physicians hoping to profit from "downstream" testing, particularly heart catheterizations.

Like anything, heart scans can be used for both good and evil. How can you be sure that your heart scan is put to proper use--for your benefit and not someone else's profit?

Simple: Get educated. Understand the issues, be armed with informed questions.

If, for instance, you're a 55-year old female with a heart scan score of 90, active without symptoms, and you're told to have a heart catheterization right off the bat---run the other way. This is bad advice. A heart procedure like catheterization at this score in an asymptomatic woman is very rarely necessary. That decision can only be made after a step-by-step series of decisions are made by a truly interested, unbiased party. (A stress test is almost always required in this situation before the decision can be made to proceed with a catheterization.)

Unfortunately, in 2006, getting unbiased advice from your doctor is still a struggle. That's why we started Track Your Plaque---unbiased information, uncolored by drug or device company support, with an interest in the truth.

I had an interesting conversation with a device representative this morning. He was a sales representative for a major medical manufacturer of stents, defibrillators, and other such devices for heart disease.

Since I'm still involved with hospital heart care and cardiac catheterization laboratories, this representative asked me if I was interested in getting involved with some of the new cardiac devices making it to market over the next year or two. "The coronary market is drying up, what with coated stents and such. We've got to find new profit sources."

Well, doesn't that sum it up? If you haven't already had this epiphany, here it is:

HEART DISEASE IS A PROFITABLE BUSINESS!

Why else can hospitals afford billboards, $10 million dollar annual ad campaigns, etc.? They do it for PROFIT. Likewise, device and drug manufacturers see the tremendous profit in heart disease.

The representative's comments about the market "drying up" simply means that the use of coated stents has cut back on the need for repeat procedures. It does NOT mean that coronary disease is on the way out. On the contrary, for the people and institutions who stand to profit from heart care, there's lots of opportunity.

Track Your Plaque is trying to battle this trend. Heart disease should NOT be profitable. For the vast majority of us, it is a preventable process, much like house fires and dental cavities.

With the booming popularity of "64-slice CT scans", there's a lot of mis-information about what these tests provide.

These tests are essentially heart scans with added x-ray dye injected to see the insides of the arteries. However, to accomplish this, a large quantity of radiation is required. In addition, the test is not quantitative, that is, it is not a precise measure that can be repeated year after year.

It is okay to have a 64-slice CT coronary angiogram. It is NOT okay to have one every year. That's too much radiation. However, a heart scan can be repeated every year, if necessary, to track progression or regression. Once stabilization (zero change) or reduction is achieved, then you're done (unless your life takes a major change, like a 20 lb weight gain).

The tried-and-true CT heart scan is the gold standard--easy, inexpensive, precise, and repeatable. Not true for 64-slice angiograms.

What if you went to your doctor for a problem and he/she promptly placed leeches on your body?

Yeccchhhh! Would you go back? I'd bet that you'd run the other way as fast as your bleeding legs could take you. Outdated health practices like "bleeding" are outdated for good reason.

Then why would you allow your doctor to approach your heart disease prevention program by checking cholesterol and then waiting for symptoms to appear? That miserable approach leads to tragedy and death all too often--ask Bill Clinton! He might as well have had leeches!

Don't allow your doctor's ignorance or disinterest impede your prevention program. Get your coronary plaque measured, then attack it from all sides by knowing all causes, hidden and obvious. That's why Track Your Plaque is such an effective program.

I often wonder why more doctors aren't using this unbelievably powerful approach to deal with heart disease. But when I see colleagues implanting stents, defibrillators, and the like for many thousands of dollars per patient, the answers are obvious. Given a choice of a rational, effective program of prevention that pays the doctor a few hundred dollars for his time, versus $2000 to $10,000 for a procedure, you can see that the temptation is irresistible for many physicians.

Followers of the Track Your Plaque program already know that maintaining an optimistic viewpoint is important in gaining control over coronary plaque.

In fact, I believe that, in many cases, a sense of optimism may make or break your CT heart scan score-reducing efforts. Pessimists rarely drop their score, while optimists do so all the time.

This week posed a challenge to my optimism. I spent the last week on jury duty hearing the details of a murder case. For four days, I listened to blow-by-blow testimony about the totally pointless, unprovoked death of a young man by a drug-dealing thug. Much of the witness testimony was from people who shared the hopeless, violent world of the defendant.

I was, however, completely impressed by the dedication of the prosecuting attorney, a 50-some year old man who was clearly deeply dedicated to his mission and didn't once provide any indication that he was grandstanding or looking for some personal glory. He was doing his job and trying to obtain justice for the fallen victim. I was equally impressed by the judge, who seemed unfazed by the events but carefully explained why the system worked the way it did. After the trial, he provided some further insights to us jury members and I saw him as a human being who, like the prosecutor, was trying to make a small contribution to making the world better.

Though many of the witnesses who testified against the defendant shared his world, I was impressed with their courage in coming forward. They face the threat of reprisals, I'm sure, for coming forward to the law and testifying against a known career criminal. Several of them said that they were not after any reward, but simply wished to do the right thing and provide testimony that proved damning against the defendant.

I acted as the jury foreman and I was proud of how the jury members listened carefully, asked intelligent and probing questions, and then helped us render a confident and expeditious sentence: guilty.

If anything, despite the tragic circumstances, I was much heartened at how all the participants in this process played their part and justice (at least in the legal sense) was served.

Let optimism prevail, even in dire circumstances.

I seem to be repeating myself lately, but I think this does bear repeating:

There's no need to re-invent the wheel when it comes to gaining control over your heart scan score.

The Track Your Plaque program is the most powerful approach known to help you gain control over your coronary atherosclerotic plaque and CT heart scan score, bar none. While 100% of people do not drop their score, more and more people every week are doing so. (One of the admitted weaknesses of the Track Your Plaque website is our failure to list more success stories; we're working on it.)

The basic program is quite simple:

--The Rule of 60 for lipids (LDL 60 mg/dl; HDL 60 mg/dl or greater; triglycerides 60 mg/dl or less)

--Identify hidden causes of plaque, esp. small LDL, Lp(a), and IDL, followed by specific corrective action

--Fish oil--minimum 1200 mg per day of EPA + DHA

--Normal vitamin D3 blood levels (We aim for 25-OH-vitamin D3 of 50-60 ng/ml)

--Normal blood sugar (<100 mg/dl)

--Normal blood pressure (<130/80)

--An optimistic attitude

Much of the other stuff--vitamin K, matrix metalloproteinase reducing strategies, flavonoid strategies, exercise-induced hypertension, etc.--are, for the majority, fluff. Their real role is in people who may have failed in stopping the rise of their heart scan score just doing the basics of the program.

If you neglect the basics, hoping to find some magic potion, I'm afraid the overwhelming likelihood is that you will fail. I've seen it happen time and again. Someone will come to my office with an extraordinary list of supplements--hawthorne, dozens of anti-oxidants, EDTA, concentrated flavonoid preparations, and on and on. Not only is it shockingly expensive to do this, it's also unnecessary and foolhardy. This kind of unfocused, hocus-pocus in the hopes of getting it right fail time after time.

The Track Your Plaque program, while not foolproof, is the best I know of. Stick to the basics and wander off when the basics fail. But there's extraordinary power in just achieving the basics.

I was shocked recently when someone accused me and the Track Your Plaque website of being nothing more than a front for the drug industry, that we are promoting concepts with the hidden pharmacuetical agenda behind us.

Don't make me laugh. How in the world that kind of impression could be gotten from either the Heart Scan Blog or the Track Your Plaque website is beyond me.

But I occasionally do need to state explicity: We do not promote drugs, neither this Blog nor the Track Your Plaque website has ever sought nor been backed by pharmaceutical money. The only money that supports this website is our own and that from paying Track Your Plaque members.

In fact, I am quite proud of the unbiased content and commentary on both venues. I challenge anyone to point out how and where there is any suggested relationship to a hidden source of commercial backing. I assure you, there is none.

If I say a drug is worth you and your doctor considering, then I say so with a true belief in it, not because somebody or some company paid me to say so. If I say a drug stinks, I believe that too. If we use a specific supplement in the program, it's because we believe it truly adds value to a plaque-reversal program. We receive no money from drug, supplement, or other commercial interests to promote their products. Period.

When it comes to laboratory values and medical testing, a common dilemma is knowing what is "normal." Let me explain.

First of all, when you receive a laboratory result for a test, a "reference range" or "normal range" is usually provided. Where did that range come from?

It varies from test to test. For instance, a low potassium is easy, because low potassium levels can lead to life threatening consequences, e.g., dangerous heart rhythms. High potassium likewise, because dangerous phenomena develop when potassium generally exceeds 5.5 mg/dl or so.

But what about something like HDL or LDL. Here's where confusion reigns. Often, "normal" is obtained by taking the average and saying that any value plus or minus two standard deviations (remember that painful class?) represents normal or reference range.

If that were true, what if we applied that principle to body weight. If we weighed several thousand adult women, the average would be in the neighborhood of 172 lbs (no kidding). Does that mean that 172 lbs plus or minus two standard deviations is normal? No, of course not.

There is therefore a distinction between "normal" and "desirable". For HDL cholesterol, your laboratory report might say that an HDL cholesterol of 40-60 mg/dl is normal. But is it desirable? I don't think so. The most frequent HDL level for a male with a heart attack is 42 mg/dl--hardly desirable.

Let's take triglycerides. The average triglyceride level in the U.S. is somewhere around 140 mg/dl. For those of us who do a lot of lipoprotein testing, we can tell you that triglycerides at this level, though generally regarded as being within the normal range, are associated with flagrant and obvious excesses of several abnormal lipoprotein particles that contribute to coronary plaque growth (VLDL and often IDL; small LDL; drop in HDL and shift towards small HDL).

So, always take the so-called "normal" or "reference" values on a lab report as crude guidelines that often have little or nothing to do with health or desirability. Unfortunately, many physicians are not aware of this and will declare any value within the normal or reference range as okay. An HDL of 40 mg is not okay. A triglyceride level of 140 mg is also not okay.

What is okay? What is desirable? That depends on the parameter being examined. From a basic lipid standpoint, of course, we regard desirable as 60-60-60. Desirability from a lipoprotein standpoint we will cover in a more thorough Track Your Plaque Special Report in future.

My sister sent me these quotes:

"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out."

Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962

"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau."

Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."

Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, France

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."

Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, US Office of Patents, 1899

No doubt, conventional wisdom can often be laughably (tragically?) wrong. The problem is that, as absurd as all the above sentiments seem to us now and in retrospect, they represented the view of many people years ago. These views were held by many, including many people in positions of power and decision-making responsibility.

A more relevant but nonetheless laughable and widely held belief in 2007: coronary heart disease should be treated with hospital procedures.

Why is a disease that requires 30 years to develop treated only at the final moments with a procedure? Do you only change your car's oil when the engine is on its last legs? Or, do periodic, relatively effortless oil changes during the life of the car make better sense?

I witness just how brainwashed the public has become with this crazed notion when I meet someone socially at, say a fundraiser or cocktail party. When they ask what I do, I tell them I'm a cardiologist. The invariable response: "Oh, what hospital do you work out of?"

I tell them I don't, that I take care of the majority of heart disease right from the office. 99% of the time I get a puzzled look. If we had comic bubbles above our heads revealing our internal thoughts, it would read "Yeah, right. What a kook."

The notion that coronary heart disease is something that is manageable with simple tools for the majority of us in the early stages is entirely foreign to almost everybody. The hospitals and the medical industry have so succeeded in dazzling the public with images of staff in scrubs, rushing from emergency to emergency, lights flashing, scalpels flying. . . how can you possibly accomplish this at home or anywhere outside of the high-tech world of the hospital?

Well, I'm a cardiologist and I do it every day. We all need a figurative dose of electroshock therapy to shake ourselves of this crazy notion.

Perhaps more than any other supplement, l-arginine causes frustration and confusion. It’s difficult to find, sometimes quite expensive, and some preparations cause loose stools.

Just how necessary is it?

L-arginine, you’ll recall, is a source of nitric oxide, or NO. Though it’s the same stuff as in car exhaust, NO provides a critical signaling role in your body’s cells that regulate a multitude of functions. Among the important roles of NO is to powerfully dilate, or relax, arteries. A constant flow of NO is required for health, particularly since each molecule persists only a few seconds.

L-arginine is the body’s source of nitric oxide. In addition, a peculiar but very effective blocker of l-arginine called asymmetric dimethylarginine, or ASDM, has recently been discovered to prevent the production of NO. Varied conditions like hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, excessive saturated fat or processed carbohydrate intake all lead to heightened levels of ASDM, often several-fold greater levels, and thereby effectively blocking NO production.

The “Arginine Paradox” is the name that some researchers in this field have given to the unusual property of l-arginine supplementation to “overpower” the blocking effects of ASDM. This is somewhat unusual in biologic systems in that an agent that blocks a receptor cannot usually be outmuscled by providing excess material for a reaction. Kind of like hoping that your car runs faster simply by topping up the gas tank.

Concrete observable benefits have been made for l-arginine in clinical trials, such as arterial relaxation that results in arterial enlargement (which can actually be seen in the cath lab); anti-inflammatory effects; reduction of blood pressure; enhancement of insulin responses, etc. All of these effects can be connected to beneficial properties that may facilitate atherosclerotic plaque regression and, indeed, there are limited data to document that this is true.

Drug companies may be greedy, but they’re not stupid. They’ve been vigorously pursuing this line of research for some years, a research path that led inadvertently to the erectile dysfunction agent, sildenafil (Viagra), and all its subsequent competitors. (Erectile dysfunction is another expression of endothelial dysfunction, since male erections are driven by the ability to dilate penile arteries.) The wonderful properties of NO enhancement continue to occupy research labs around the world.

Wow. So what’s the reluctance? In the early years of the Track Your Plaque program (meaning just a short 7-8 years ago), I was thoroughly convinced that l-arginine was a crucial, necessary part of a plaque regression program. Without it, you would rarely succeed. With it, the odds were tipped in your favor.

However, something curious has emerged recently. I’ve seen more and more people dropping their heart scan scores. Not just a little bit, but a huge amount. Witness our most recent reco

Almonds are the new wheat

29. September 2011 William Davis (31)

Once you eliminate this genetically-altered Frankengrain called modern wheat, the diet should center around vegetables, nuts, healthy oils like olive and coconut, fish, meats, cheese, olives, avocados and other real whole foods. This is, in fact, the diet that I have advocated in my heart disease prevention practice, as well as my online program for prevention and reversal of heart disease.

But what if you'd like a piece of cheesecake or a nice slice of dessert bread---but you don't want to gain two pounds, spend 48 hours in the bathroom suffering with diarrhea and cramps, 3 weeks of joint pains and leg swelling, wade through mental "fog," anxiety, and rage just because you had that momentary indulgence---as you would with wheat?

That's why I've been focusing on recipes that allow you to have something familiar, e.g., chocolate coconut bread or biscotti, but using ingredients that will not generate the metabolic contortions triggered by wheat.

On perusing these recipes, you will notice that there are recurring ingredient themes. Many of the same ingredients pop up time and again. Among the most frequent, versatile, user-friendly, and tasty: Almonds.

You can use almonds as ground whole almonds, ground blanched almonds for a finer texture, ground roasted almonds, almond butter (though, for maximum health benefits, I prefer the ground whole almonds). Ground almonds allow you to recreate muffins, breads, scones, pizza crust, pie crust, biscotti, and cookies with health benefits that exceed that of whole wheat---but with none of the downside: no weight gain, no high blood sugar, no triggering of small LDL particles (#1 cause of heart disease in the U.S.), no accumulation of visceral fat, no appetite stimulation.

In short, you just have your chocolate almond biscotti or mocha cupcake and enjoy it, no health price to pay. So I call almonds the new wheat, except better.

Being regular is dangerous to your health

25. September 2011 William Davis (21)

No, I'm not referring to your daily morning ritual in the bathroom. I'm talking about heart rate.

Counterintuitively, a perfectly regular heart rate is a marker of poor health. People with perfect regularity of heart rate have more heart attacks, for instance.

Regularity of heart rate occurs more commonly in people with hypertension and other metabolic derangements, and it signals increased risk for both heart attack and death. A perfectly regular heart rate, i.e., no variation in the time interval from beat to beat, suggests that the parasympathetic nervous system, the component of automatic ("autonomic") nervous system control that is associated with the relaxation response, feelings of well-being, quiet, and relaxation, is weak. It also means that the opposing sympathetic nervous sytem that regulates the "fight or flight," adrenaline-like response is allowed to be dominant. Dominance of the sympathetic over the parasympathetic system generates regularity of heart rate. Heart rate also tends to be faster, e.g., 85 beats per minutes rather than 55 or 60 beats per minute. So perfect regularity, as well as increased rate, is undesirable.

What we want is irregularity of heart rate. But not irregularity that occurs chaotically with no rhyme or reason. More precisely, we want variability in heart rate. And we want variability to occur in synchrony with breathing, i.e., the respiratory cycle.

The ideal response is:

1) increase in heart rate with inspiration

2) decrease in heart rate with expiration.

Heart rate in healthy people typically varies 15-20 beats per minute within the respiratory cycle, e.g., 60 bpm at end-exhalation, 80 bpm at end-inspiration.

Restoration of increased heart rate variability is associated with reduced blood pressure, reduced blood sugars (HbA1c), reduced inflammatory markers and cortisol (associated with stress), even an increase in DHEA levels. Feelings of well-being and calm also develop.

Among the strategies to consider to restore heightened heart rate variability and slowed heart rate include:

--Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation
--Exercise
--Weight loss
--Deep breathing exercises
--Meditation, prayer, and biofeedback

For our Track Your Plaque purposes, we are folding in the HeartMath strategies, i.e., use of a heart rate monitor that calculates heart rate variability in the context of respiratory cycle. If you've not already done so, take a look at the two Special Reports devoted to this topic on the Track Your Plaque website.

You mean weight loss is hazardous to your health?

23. September 2011 William Davis (11)

In my last Heart Scan Blog post, What is this wacky thing called weight loss?, I discussed how weight loss is associated with distortions in cholesterol and blood sugar values that can be very confusing, often leading your doctor to wrongly and unnecessarily prescribe drugs--since he/she likely rarely sees weight loss.

Blog reader, Donald K., posted his enlightening story:

I experienced this very thing.

After losing serious weight from the eliminating wheat, processed, and sugary foods (1 year in total) I lost 130 pounds. When I was nearly finished I went to see my doctor. He wanted to put me on statins. I explained to him how the data does not support application to me (no evidence of heart disease) and I got the mantra about standards of practice, etc, etc. I held my ground and decided I am much happier eating dairy, eggs, grass fed beef, wild caught fish, and as much raw foods (nuts, veggies, fruits) as my body desires to treat my health parameters.

Maintaining weight, it is easy. My BMI (23 down from 40) has remained constant for a few months now. You are right: metabolic processes definitely change. I no longer have sensations of glucose fluctuations or an uncontrolled appetite. I can only imagine the improved hormone regulation and metabolic communication going on inside my body.

The symptoms from obesity, all gone. Goodbye sleep apnea, hypertension, hemorrhoids, arrhythmias, gastroinestinal disruptions, smelly body, chaffing thighs, and others not mentioned. The positive effects are just as dramatic, but I don’t want to ramble on.

Weight loss? What is it? Getting your life back!

Brace yourself: If you are following the nutrition advice posted here and in the Track Your Plaque program, or the discussion I've initiated in Wheat Belly, then you may find yourself in the very same health predicament as Donald. Arm yourself to protect yourself against the drug-wielding ways of doctors. No, weight loss to achieve ideal weight is definitely not bad for health. But your doctor's misinterpretation of its effects can be!

What is this wacky thing called "weight loss"?

20. September 2011 William Davis (41)

I've discussed this before, but it has proven such an (encouragingly!) frequent issue that I thought it was worth discussing once again.

What happens when you lose weight?

The process of weight loss is characterized by multiple shifts in metabolic patterns that can be confusing. To the uninitiated eye, weight loss can look like a disastrous distortion in metabolism. The naive doctor on seeing your lab values, for instance, might insist you take a statin drug, a fibrate like Tricor (to reduce triglycerides or increase HDL), or simply berate you for your bad health habits--when it's actually a good thing you've accomplished.

So when you lose weight, say, 30 pounds in 3 months, what have you accomplished?

Energy stored as fat, especially from visceral fat stores, is mobilized into the bloodstream. It floods the bloodstream as fatty acids and triglycerides. These fatty acids and triglycerides don't occur in isolation, but interact with other particles and metabolic patterns. The resulting blood patterns include:

--Increased triglycerides--An increase in triglycerides, for instance, from 90 mg/dl to 200 mg/dl in the midst of weight loss is common.

--Reduced HDL--The flood of triglycerides leads to increased degradation of HDL, thus a drop. A drop in HDL from, say, 40 mg/dl to 27 mg/dl--very frightening to people--is exceptionally common.

--Increased blood sugar--The flood of fatty acids and triglycerides results in insulin resistance, leading to higher blood sugars. It is not uncommon for someone with pre-diabetes to develop diabetic-range blood sugars, or a non-diabetic to show pre-diabetic blood sugars.

--Increased small LDL particles--Though small LDL is highly variable during weight loss. When it does happen, it's probably from the interaction of VLDL (triglycerides) with LDL particles and the reaction that overloads LDL particles with triglycerides and conversion to small LDL particles.

So why don't doctors often recognize these patterns when a patient loses weight? Because they rarely see it. Most of my colleagues are accustomed to having patients come back with weight gain, getting heavier and heavier each time. Lose weight? Impossible! So they just don't recognize weight loss effects when they see it. As followers of The Heart Scan Blog know, a frequent conversation around here is "Am I too skinny?" or "How do I stop losing weight?"

The solution: Be patient. Be patient and wait about two months after a weight plateau has been achieved. That's when the numbers "settle down" and you see marked drops in triglycerides, increases in HDL, drops in blood sugar, reductions in small LDL.

As with many things, it's all about timing.

Why small LDL particles are the #1 cause of heart disease in the US

15. September 2011 William Davis (77)

Ask your doctor: What is the #1 cause of heart disease in the US?

Let's put aside smoking, since it is an eminently modifiable risk and none of those crazies read this blog anyway. What will your doctor say? Most like he or she will respond:

High cholesterol or high LDL cholesterol

Too much saturated fat

Obesity

Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca and their kind would be overjoyed to know that they can add your doctor to their eager following.

I'd tell you something different. I would tell you that small LDL particles are, by far and away, the #1 cause for heart disease. I base this claim on several observations:

--Having run over 10,000 lipoprotein panels (mostly NMR) over the past 15 years, it is a rare person who does not have a moderate, if not severe, excess of small LDL particles. 50%, 70%, even 90% or more small LDL particles are not rare. Over the course of a year, the only people who show no small LDL particles are slender, athletic, pre-menopausal females.

--In studies in which lipoproteins have been quantified in people with coronary disease, small LDL particles dominate, just as they do in my office. Here's a 2006 review.

--Small LDL is largely the province of people who consume carbohydrates, such as the American population instructed to "cut fat and eat more healthy whole grains." Conventional diet advice has therefore triggered an expllosion in small LDL particles.

--When fasting triglycerides exceed 60 mg/dl, small LDL particles increase as a proportion of total LDL particles. This includes the majority of the US population. (This ignores postprandial, or after-eating, triglycerides, which also contribute to small LDL formation.)

If you were to read the data, however, you might conclude that small LDL affects a minority of people. This is because in most studies small LDL categorize it as either "pattern B," meaning exceeding some arbitrary threshold of percentage of small LDL particles, versus "pattern A," meaning falling below that same arbitrary threshold.

Problem: There is no consensus on what percentage of small LDL particles should mark the cutoff between pattern A vs. pattern B. In many studies, for instance, people with 50% small LDL particles are called "pattern A."

If, instead, we were to set the bar lower to identify this highly atherogenic (atherosclerotic plaque-causing) particle at, say, 20-30% of total, then the number or percentage of people with "pattern B" small LDL particles would go much higher.

I see this play out in my office and in the online program, Track Your Plaque, every day: At the start eating a low-fat, grain-filled diet with lots of visceral fat ("wheat belly") to start, they add back fat and cut out all wheat and limit carbohydrates. Small LDL particles plummet

Even moore from Jimmy Moore

14. September 2011 William Davis (8)

The ubiquitous and irrepressible Jimmy Moore posted even more commentary about the Wheat Belly phenomenon here, what he calls "The Wheat Belly Bonanza."

Is low-carb really, Cureality | Real People Seeking Real Cures

Grasscutting, fertilizer, and healthcare

25. August 2009 William Davis (23)

A guy named Jeff, a 60-something, taciturn, "How 'bout dem Brewers?" kind of guy, cuts my grass.

Once a week, Jeff drives over his rust-rimmed 1994 Chevy pickup and trailer, unloads his ride mower, and cuts the grass. For his 40 minutes of work, I pay him $35.

For $35, all he does is cut the grass--no trimming, no picking up debris, no working in the garden, no fertilizing, no weeding. Just cutting the grass. Occasionally, Jeff has proven to be a useful resource for peculiar problems. Last year, I had a drainage problem that he helped solve and two years ago he helped diagnose a tree disease that was killing a tree in the backyard; it's now recovered.

To save money, and because I like to work in the yard, I do the rest. I trim the edges, I fertilize the grass, plant new flowers and trees, fix damaged areas, trim wild branches.

In my view, my relationship with Jeff, a limited, as-needed relationship, in which I ask him to help with specific issues but I manage the rest myself, is how I believe that healthcare should also be conducted.

Your doctor should be like Jeff: Perhaps not taciturn, but an as-needed resource available while you do much of the work.

My simple relationship with Jeff is, I believe, the healthcare model of the future. You manage your own cholesterol issues, your own basic thyroid issues, supplement and monitor your vitamin D levels, use diet to suit your needs, order blood tests when necessary, even obtain basic imaging tests like heart scans, carotid ultrasound, bone density testing. Your doctor is a resource, near by when and if you need him or her: guidance when needed, an occasional review of what you are doing, someone to consult when you fracture an ankle.

What your doctor is NOT is a paternal, "do what I say, I'm the doctor," or a "You need these tests whether you like it or not" holder of your health fate.

It is a model of healthcare that will evolve over the next 20-30 years, only in its infancy now.

While we started Track Your Plaque as just a resource for in-depth information on prevention and reversal of coronary heart disease, I now see it as something much greater: a prototype for the emerging concept of self-directed health.

Enough for now. I've got some tomatoes to pick.

Iodine deficiency is REAL

21. August 2009 William Davis (30)

Like many health-conscious people, Kurt avoids salt. In fact, he has assiduously avoided salt ever since his heart attack back in 1995.

Lately, Kurt had become tired, often for little or no reason. His thyroid panel:

TSH 4.2 mIU/L (0.27-4.20)
Free T3 1.74 pg/ml (2.50-4.30)
Free T4 1.05 ng/dl (0.9-1.7)

Kurt's TSH of 4.2 mIU/L is sufficient to increase LDL cholesterol by 20-30% and increase the (relative) risk for heart attack 3-fold.

Kurt's thyroid was also palpably enlarged. While it was just barely visible--just a minor bulge in the neck (in the shape of a bowtie), it could be clearly felt when I examined him.

I asked Kurt to add 500 mcg of iodine every day. Three months later, another thyroid panel showed:

TSH 0.14 mIU/L (0.27-4.20)
Free T3 2.50 pg/ml (2.50-4.30)
Free T4 1.1 ng/dl (0.9-1.7)

Kurt's thyroid function normalized to nearly ideal levels just with iodine replacement. (The free T3, while improved, remains low; an issue for another day!)

I see this response with some frequency: low-grade goiter and apparent hypothyroidism (low thyroid function) that responds, at least partially, to iodine replacement. In Kurt's case, iodine replacement alone normalized his thyroid measures completely.

With improved thyroid measures, Kurt also felt better with renewed energy and a 22 mg/dl reduction in LDL cholesterol.

Make no mistake: Iodine deficiency is real. While most of my colleagues have dismissed iodine deficiency as a relic of the early 20th century and third world countries, you can also find it in your neighborhood.

Fish oil for $780 per bottle

19. August 2009 William Davis (16)

At prevailing pharmacy prices, one capsule of prescription Lovaza fish oil costs $4.33 each.

Yes, you heard right: $4.33 per capsule.

What do you get for $4.33 per capsule? By omega-3 fatty acid content, you get 842 mg EPA + DHA per capsule.

I can also go to Sam's Club and buy a bottle of their Triple-Strength fish oil with 900 mg omega-3 fatty acids per capsule at $18.99 per bottle of 180 capsules. That comes to 10.5 cents per capsule. That puts the price of fish oil from Sam's Club at 97.6% less cost compared to Lovaza for an equivalent quantity of omega-3 fatty acids.

What if we repriced Sam's Club's Triple-Strength and brought it "in line" with what we pay for Lovaza? That would put the value of one bottle of Sam's Club Triple-Strength fish oil at $780 per bottle.

I take patients off Lovaza every chance I get.

Organic really IS better

16. August 2009 William Davis (18)

If you have any doubts about the value of organic foods vs. conventionally-grown foods, then take a look at the findings from a USDA--Yes, USDA--sponsored study.

In this study, the nutritional content of organic vs. conventionally-grown blueberries were compared. Ironically, these observations come from the USDA's Genetic Improvement of Fruits and Vegetables Laboratory of the Produce Quality and Safety Laboratory.

Their findings (all values expressed as weight per 100 grams fresh weight blueberries, or a bit less than 1/4 cup):

Total phenol content (e.g, flavonoids):

Organic: 319.3 mg
Conventional: 190.3 mg

Organic blueberries had 68% greater phenol content.

Total anthocyanins (an important class of flavonoids):

Organic: 131.2 mg
Conventional: 82.4 mg

Organic blueberries had 59% greater anthocyanin content.

Antioxidant capacity (ORAC):

Organic: 46.14 mg
Conventional: 30.8

Organic blueberries had 50% greater antioxidant capacity.

Flavonoids suspected to carry unusually potent health effects--malvidin, delphinidin, myricetin, and quercetin--were all contained in greater proportions in the organically-grown blueberries, also. These flavonoids are demonstrating pharmacologic-level health effects in preliminary studies.

Why a genetics laboratory? After all , the study findings came out heavily in favor of non-genetic, organic farming methods of growing produce. It certainly must have at least given pause to the vocal group within agriculture and the USDA that have long argued that organic produce is no different. I suspect that the laboratory will now try to recreate the nutritional value of organic through genetic manipulation of cultivars grown using conventional methods.

Regardless of the motivations behind the study, we see that there is no comparison: organic blueberries are superior in nutritional value to those grown with conventional pesticides and herbicides. While the study addressed only blueberries, the dramatic difference makes it likely that similar differences exist in other fruits and vegetables.

Coming on the Track Your Plaque website: An in-depth Special Report on the health effects of anthocyanins.

Do you really need calcium?

12. August 2009 William Davis (0)

Why are we advised to take calcium supplements?

Men and women are advised to take calcium because it has been shown to reduce blood pressure modestly. Women, in particular, can stall the deterioration of bone strength (mineralization) by taking calcium supplements, 1200-1300 mg per day, and eating calcium-rich foods like dairy products.

Is that all true?

It is true insofar as we remain vitamin D deficient. A funny thing happens when you fully replete vitamin D: Intestinal absorption of calcium as much as quadruples. That means your body will efficiently absorb the calcium in broccoli and spinach.

Is it still necessary to force-feed your body megadoses of calcium once vitamin D has been repleted? I don’t think so.

While the evidence is indirect, several observations point towards the lack of necessity of calcium once vitamin D is addressed.
For instance:

Women who take calcium, 1200 mg per day, with vitamin D, 800 units per day, double their five-year risk for heart attack, according to a New Zealand study.

Men who take calcium, 1200 mg per day, with vitamin D, 800 units per day, also may substantially increase heart attack risk.

Bone density increases more with vitamin D than with calcium. Calcium may not even be necessary to increase bone mineralization, since there are data to suggest that vitamin D can accomplish this by itself.

Calcium suppresses parathyroid hormone, PTH. That is, in fact, how calcium stalls (usually does not reverse) bone mineral loss-not by adding calcium to bone, but by suppressing PTH release. (PTH causes bone demineralization.) Vitamin D suppresses PTH to a far greater degree than calcium.

What is needed is a broad reconsideration of the advice everyone is getting to take calcium. In an age when more and more people are appreciating the power of vitamin D supplementation to achieve normal blood levels, there may be danger ahead for those who fail to address their calcium overdosing.

The case against vitamin D2

11. August 2009 William Davis (40)

Why would vitamin D be prescribed when vitamin D3 is available over-the-counter?

Let's review the known differences between vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) and vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol):

--D3 is the human form; D2 is the non-human form found in plants.

--Dose for dose, D3 is more effective at raising blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D than D2. It requires roughly twice to 250% of the dose of D2 to match that of D3 (Trang H et al 1998).

--D2 blood levels don't yield long-term sustained levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D as does D3. When examined as a 28-day area under the curve (AUC--a superior measure of biologic exposure), D3 yields better than a 300% increased potency compared to D2. This means that it requires around 50,000 units D2 to match the effects of 15,000 units D3 (Armas LA et al 2004).

--D2 has lower binding affinity for vitamin D-binding protein, compared to D3

--Mitochondrial vitamin D 25-hydroxylase converts D3 to the 25-hydroxylated form five times more rapidly than D2.

--As we age, the ability to metabolize D2 is dramatically reduced, while D3 is not subject to this phenomenon (Harris SS et al 2002).

From Armas LA, Hollis BW, Heaney RP 2004

While there are dissenters on this view, the bulk of evidence suggests that D2 is an inferior form of D3.

Then why is D2 prescribed by many doctors when the natural, human, and superior D3 is available over-the-counter?

You already know the answer: Much of your doctor's education did not come from scientific lectures nor from reading scientific studies. It came from the pretty drug representative in the waiting room who hands the doctor reprints of the "studies" performed by the drug industry to support the use of their drugs. There is no such nutritional supplement representative in the waiting room. This preference for the "drug" D2 over the supplement D3 also stems from the inherent preference of physicians for things they can control, whether or not there is proof of superiority.

In my view, there is absolutely no reason to take vitamin D2 over D3 except to enrich the drug industry.

Honey: More fructose than high-fructose corn syrup

11. August 2009 William Davis (21)

Honey: It’s natural. Mom probably gave it to you, either straight or in tea for a sore throat when you were a kid. Even today, honey is touted as possessing almost supernatural qualities for promoting health.

Honey contains B vitamins, minerals, and a handful of antioxidants. It also contains . . . fructose. 60% of honey, in fact, is fructose.

While the average per capita intake of honey is only a modest 1.29 lb per year (National Honey Board; 2008) and therefore contributes only 0.77 lb of fructose per year, there are people who, believing honey to be healthy, use it to excess and use far more than 1.29 lb per year.

How does that compare to table sugar, or sucrose?

Sucrose is 50:50 glucose to fructose. How about high-fructose corn syrup, the sweetener found in virtually all processed foods that has replaced sucrose as the most common sweetener? Depending on the variety, high-fructose corn syrup is generally 42-55% fructose. Many of us (including me) believe that the proliferation of high-fructose corn syrup in processed foods is a big part of the reason Americans are fat and diabetic.

Yes: Judged by its fructose content, honey is worse than high-fructose corn syrup. It is also worse than sucrose.

It means that honey can also contribute to the adverse health effects of fructose, as detailed in this prior Heart Scan Blog post.

Sun, fish, and seaweed

8. August 2009 William Davis (9)

Extraordinary heart health springs from three basic sources in our environment:

Sun, fish, and seaweed.

Sun: Sunlight exposure is nature's intended source of vitamin D. Humans were meant to run naked, or at least scantily clad, in tropical or sub-tropical climates. The large surface area of skin ensured plenty of skin activation of vitamin D, along with long days of intense sun (unlike the seasonal variation of day length and less intense sun further north).

Fish: Fish are the principal source of omega-3 fatty acids, as are, to a lesser degree, wild land animals. Humans as hunter-gatherers tracked, captured, and slaughtered fish and wild game, eaten immediately, since there was no means of storage. Omega-3-rich game was the principal source of fat for primitive cultures.

Seaweed: Seaweed is the world’s most concentrated source of iodine. While seafood like fish and shellfish also contain iodine, seaweed contains, on average, a thousand-fold greater quantity. Seaweed, like plants found on land, are also rich in phytonutrients.

The healthiest cultures on earth follow this simple recipe for health. The unhealthiest population on earth-meaning Americans (i.e., without benefit of bail-out medications and procedures that keep us alive, or vaccinations that protect us from infectious diseases)--neglect all three. Witness the Okinawans, whose daily meals nearly always contain some form of fish and seaweed, and whose sub-tropical climate provides greater sun exposure. It is not unusual for Okinawans to live to 100 years of age, not as an exception, but the rule. Heart disease was virtually unknown except in 90-year olds and older-that is, until the recent adoption of Western practices like fast food and snacks.

It's pretty incredible when you think about it: Simple practices can markedly reduce your likelihood of heart attack and developing heart disease.

Perhaps you’d rather not run naked along a semi-tropical beach, spear fish, and gather seaweed. You could always do the modern equivalents and achieve similar benefits.

Glycemic index: A flawed concept

7. August 2009 William Davis (0)

Kallio P et al Am J Clin Nutr 2008

Squares = rye bread, circles = oat bread

Fructose is a coronary risk factor

4. August 2009 William Davis (21)

As discussed in a previous Heart Scan Blog post, Say Goodbye to Fructose, a carefully-conducted University of California study demonstrated that, compared to glucose, fructose induces:

1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation

2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol, doubled Apoprotein B

3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, 3-fold more than glucose

4) Increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%.

Other studies have shown that fructose:

--Increases uric acid--No longer is red meat the cause for increased uric acid; fructose has taken its place. Uric acid may act as an independent coronary risk factor and increases high blood pressure and kidney disease.

--Induces insulin resistance, the situation that creates diabetes

--Increases glycation (fructose linked to proteins) and protein cross-linking, processes that underlie atherosclerosis, liver disease, and cataracts.

Make no mistake: Fructose is a powerful coronary risk factor.
There is no doubt whatsoever that a diet rich in fructose from fruit drinks, honey, raisins and other dried fruit like cranberries, sucrose (table sugar), and high-fructose corn syrup is a high-risk path to heart disease.

Also note that many foods labeled "heart healthy" because of low-fat, low saturated fat, addition of sterol esters, or fiber, also contain fructose sources, especially high-fructose corn syrup.