CIS: Carbohydrate intolerance syndrome

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.

Comments (28) -

  • Sarah

    1/28/2009 2:45:00 PM |

    What's a "fake grape"?

  • Anonymous

    1/28/2009 4:19:00 PM |

    Do you think instant oats, or rolled oats, are ok?

    How about grits?  

    A Southerner trying to find something to replace cheerios or bagel for breakfast!  Already gave up eggs and bacon!

  • Anonymous

    1/28/2009 6:19:00 PM |

    "green fake grapes"
    - can you expand on this or provide a link to another blog entry that explains what is wrong with these? Thanks.

  • Diana Hsieh

    1/29/2009 1:09:00 AM |

    Anonymous -- Why give up eggs and bacon?  Reducing carbs requires increasing fat intake -- and contrary to the conventional wisdom, that's a good thing for your health.  (See Gary Taubes' _Good Calories, Bad Calories_.)

  • Anonymous

    1/29/2009 1:43:00 AM |

    Green grapes:  negligible amounts of reversatol.

    AJL

  • Anonymous

    1/29/2009 2:30:00 AM |

    Yes, I'd like to know if carbs like whole, cooked oat groats and/or wild rice are okay on TYP?  These are the only grains my cardiologist allows on his program.

    Also, what about oat bran, both cooked and uncooked?

    And lastly, ground flax seed?

    madcook

  • Anne

    1/29/2009 3:06:00 AM |

    Anonymous ~ bring back the eggs. add some veges and cheese and that makes a great breakfast. When I eat bacon I buy the stuff without the nitrites. My breakfast often looks like my dinner - lots of low carb veges and protein.

    I am a Southerner and grits are too high carb for me - shoots my blood sugar up to 200. Yup, I have CIS or maybe it is T2DM. Whatever I have, keeping my carbs low seems to be working well.

  • Anonymous

    1/29/2009 4:05:00 AM |

    what's a fake grape?

  • Anna

    1/29/2009 7:59:00 AM |

    Salmon is great for breakfast, either leftover from dinner or cured salmon (gravlax).  So is a salami and cheese plate now and then, for variety.  Breakfast doesn't have to be sweet or  grainy, if one can get out of that mindset.  

    Avocado omelet, sausage (make 2-3 days worth at one time and reheat), baked custard, smoothies.  There are all sorts of great non-grain breakfasts.

  • Grapes of wrath

    1/29/2009 12:22:00 PM |

    Can't say I have heard of fake grapes, well maybe the plastic ones.

  • keith

    1/29/2009 1:17:00 PM |

    fake grapes are seedless green grapes that are effectively candy. fruit with seeds that are close to the way they occurred in nature before we mass produced them are healthier.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/29/2009 2:19:00 PM |

    Madcook--

    All are fine, with little rise in blood sugar except for the oat products, which can raise blood sugar in very carb-sensitive people.

    Ground flaxseed is the very best, with pure protein, oils (including linolenic acid), and fiber but with no digestible starches.

  • Anonymous

    1/29/2009 3:37:00 PM |

    This blog is great, that's why I added it to my top ten health blogs. www.mydailywellnesstip.com

    Jean-Luc Boissonneault

  • Frederick

    1/29/2009 7:01:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    I recently received some curious results on my blood panels and am curious for your feedback. I am sorry to trouble you with my personal story but am not sure where else to go for info. I appreciate any help you can provide, in addition to what you have already done with this blog, which is a terrific resource.

    In May 2007 my blood panel looked like this:

    Total cholesterol 155
    Trigylcerides 65
    HDL 50
    LDL (calc) 92

    In Jan 2009 I received the following:

    Total cholesterol 311!
    Trigylcerides 43
    HDL 88
    LDL (calc) 214!

    I am currently 41, athletic, do high intensity short duration exercise 3-4 times/wk, low body fat, fairly good health. I changed my diet in Jan 2008 from a standard "healthy" diet to paleo style after reading Cordain's book. I followed Cordain's recommendations fairly closely for about six months, eating lots of fruits and veggies, lean meat (trimming the fat), very few starches, and nuts seeds avocados, olive oil, etc. In summer I began reading some blogs and books which recommended a diet higher in sat fats, lower in protein and lower in PUFAs, so I made some changes by severely limiting PUFAs (no more nuts, less fatty chicken and pork) and eating fattier red meat, coconut oil. I also cut down on veggies and fruits and added starches and white rice.

    While I would consider myself a little skeptical about the meaning of cholesterol tests, I am by no means an expert and was amazed by the increase in cholesterol and am very curious what this means and why. I understand that some of the numbers here (e.g. total cholesterol) don't mean much, that some of the numbers (e.g. hdl/tris ratio) are good, that LDL calc is often inaccurate, and that based on my low tris, my LDL is likely to be large and fluffy instead of small and dense. But I am still amazed by the rise and curious what it means. Should I be concerned? Why did this happen so fast? Thanks again for any guidance you can provide.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/29/2009 10:33:00 PM |

    Frederick--

    While I don't make a habit out of responding to personal questions (because they would overwhelm time demands), your changes are quite profound.

    However, there are a number of underlying processes that could account for such a change. One solution would be to obtain lipoprotein analysis to see what the true, underlying patterns are, e.g., what is measured LDL?

    Also, consider thyroid issues.

    Also consider consulting the Track Your Plaque program, in which these discussions are conducted in detail every day.

  • Anna

    1/29/2009 11:13:00 PM |

    Frederick,

    While my numbers are not exactly the same as yours (past and present), they show a similar trend since I have adopted a more paleo-oriented diet, starting about 5 years ago.  The main difference is that I am female, 47 yo (not menopausal yet, and I wouldn't call myself athletic.  I really haven't been worried about the lab numbers, though they raise my endocrinologists eyebrows.  I had my first coronary calcium scan in Dec '08 and my score was 0, no evidence of coronary artery plaque.

    Have you had a coronary calcium scan yet?  That should tell you if your coronary arteries are building plaque or not.  And of course, the detailed analysis of your lipoproteins needs to be done, too, as Dr.Davis mentioned.  

    Keep in mind, the vast majority of the studies and references for  "good" or "bad" lab results in "Westernized" people come from people who *don't* eat paleo.  So there really isn't much of a comparison data base for those Westerners who eat paleo.  Peter at Hyperlipid blog has some discussion of this "lack of comparison data issue".

  • Anonymous

    1/30/2009 4:49:00 AM |

    Frederick,

    Please join us over on the Track Your Plaque membership website.  We routinely discuss issues such as yours, there is a wealth of information there beyond Dr. Davis' book, and we are a friendly, supportive, and well informed group.

    That aside, it appears you have gotten standard blood testing.  Please get an NMR lipoprofile, Berkeley or VAP test done... you will learn so much more.

    You were eating Paleo, but then you've cut out nuts and I see this little kicker: " I also cut down on veggies and fruits and added starches and white rice."  Hummmm... that is definitely not Paleo anymore, and if you are indeed carb sensitive, those additions could completely tip the cart and put you where you appear to be now.

    And I see that Dr. Davis has mentioned thyroid issues... get your doctor to test for those.  You are now "of an age" where these issues begin to express themselves.

    If you have not had one, go get a heart scan.  You will then know where you stand with regard to plaque formation.  BTW, I am talking about a simple heart scan, not the whiz bang 64-slice thing with the big dose of radiation.  Knowledge is power in this regard.

    I have no affiliation with Dr. Davis nor Track Your Plaque, other than as a very satisfied member/subscriber for the past several years.  I would feel alone and bewildered by such issues, were it not for TYP, which is IMO the most cutting edge program available.

    Good luck to you in finding answers to your personal situation.

    madcook

  • Nameless

    1/30/2009 9:25:00 PM |

    Frederick--

    Your rise in LDL... could it simply because you increased saturated fat intake? Your HDL also increased, which would make sense too. And trigs went down.

    Whether or not this is a good thing, I'm not sure. But increased animal fats usually equals higher LDL, higher HDL, lowered trigs (assuming fats replace carb intake).

    Have you measured your C-reactive protein before and after this diet change? I'm curious if saturated fats cause more inflammation, or less.

  • Dr. B G

    1/31/2009 2:12:00 AM |

    Frederick, Diana Hsieh:

    I don't worry about your LDL -- again it is a faulty inaccurate measure as Dr. D talked about in the 'Tale of Two LDL's post.

    Your TGs are Excellent!!

    Your HDLS totally ROCK and are the envy of anyone who knows anything about heart disease (or cancer).

    If you NMR'd or VAP'd your particles -- you would find that they are ALL Large, nice fluffy PHAT buoyant particles (just like Jimmy Moore's who has a similar diet/lifestyle as you two -- no grains, low carb, mod prot, mod-high fat and exercise).

    Likewise, you'll likely find that your HDL2b which are the regressive particles and necessary for optimal longevity and health will be stunning and awesome.

    Keep up the strong work and let us know if you get a particle count and density evaluated (~$99).

    -G

  • Dr. B G

    1/31/2009 2:12:00 AM |

    Frederick, Diana Hsieh:

    I don't worry about your LDL -- again it is a faulty inaccurate measure as Dr. D talked about in the 'Tale of Two LDL's post.

    Your TGs are Excellent!!

    Your HDLS totally ROCK and are the envy of anyone who knows anything about heart disease (or cancer).

    If you NMR'd or VAP'd your particles -- you would find that they are ALL Large, nice fluffy PHAT buoyant particles (just like Jimmy Moore's who has a similar diet/lifestyle as you two -- no grains, low carb, mod prot, mod-high fat and exercise).

    Likewise, you'll likely find that your HDL2b which are the regressive particles and necessary for optimal longevity and health will be stunning and awesome.

    Keep up the strong work and let us know if you get a particle count and density evaluated (~$99).

    -G

  • Anonymous

    1/31/2009 9:05:00 PM |

    Frederick-

    I think your changes are a simple result of "added starches and white rice".
    As you can see from this post from Dr. Davis just days ago, lipid levels can change dramatically and quickly with the added starches.


    http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/making-sense-out-of-lipid-changes.html

  • Trinkwasser

    2/2/2009 6:57:00 PM |

    Here's a big amen! to this post. My FBG is usually under 90 and never over 100. My GTT came back at 193 so "not diabetic" (I've since managed "truly" diabetic numbers by eating on top of a liver dump, but they are unofficial, measured on my own meter.)

    BMI about 22 so not overweight. Fit and active.

    So the ADA calculator still tells me I am at "low risk of diabetes" and that's what doctors have told me all my life despite the most horrendous lipids, including gallstones in my twenties, rising BP, episodes going back 50 years of what I now know to be reactive hypoglycemia (they knock my A1c right down)including ferocious night sweats in childhood. And of course all the other symptoms of diabetes, nocturia, chronic skin infections etc. all blown off because I didn't show that magic FBG rise.

    Curiously all these "neurotic" "hypochondriac" "anxiety" "depression" "pretending to be ill for sympathy" "personality disorder" symptoms have normalised by doing one thing: eating the exact opposite of the "Heart Healthy" diet - so long as I keep carbs to about 60g with the odd excursion to 100g or so I produce better numbers than a lot of "normies".

    Genealogical research shows the family is riddled with "metabolic syndrome" in non-obese people along with other diabetics who were also skinny Type 2s. I don't know how many other families, let alone individuals, have these obvious but not diagnosed type patterns.

    Or how many of them could be so comparatively easily treated.

    Well OK I cheat a bit, an ARB and a statin helps with the BP and LDL but they might not have been necessary if the thing had been caught earlier, or its comparatively slow progression hadn't been speeded up courtesy of the dietician.

    Yes it doesn't take a CSI to diagnose CIS. Just someone who looks at the Big Picture.

    My worst carbohydrate is wheat, spikes my BG about as bad as sugar, I can manage small quantities in the evening though. Fruit is nearly as bad except for berries.

    I shudder at all that healthy muesli I used to shovel into my face for breakfast and swill down with orange juice. I shudder more when I see the dietician's smile of approval.

    I can handle small quantities of oatcakes at breakfast, I favour high protein moderate fat and especially fish and salad, with other meats as a change. I can do ryebread in small quantities by lunchtime. I'd eat eggs if I could stand the taste.

    Carb input goes up on a slope from 15g at breakfast to 30g and sometimes 50g by evening. Masses of veggies, fish, meat, nuts and cheese and the occasional 85% chocolate make up the rest of my diet (oh and the coffee, and red wine, so not entirely paleo).

    None of this came from Medical Professionals in real life, it all came from the interweb and was run past my BG meter. Maybe by the 22nd century it will be mainstream and the Heart Healthy High Carb Low Fat diet will be consigned to the history books as a failed experiment on an entire population.

  • Dr. William Davis

    2/2/2009 10:38:00 PM |

    Trinkwasser--

    Thanks for sharing your wonderfully insightful experience.

    Do I have your permission to feature your comment as the focus of a blog post?

  • Trinkwasser

    2/6/2009 9:07:00 PM |

    You're more than welcome! I like to get my story out as it is a direct opposite of the standard "you made yourself ill through sloth and gluttony" accusation. Big major thanks must go to my late Aunt who did a lot of the genealogical research which discovered the pattern (she was told at 80 she had the blood pressure of a 30 year old, I was the exact opposite!) and died at 88 of an aneurysm: this despite being slightly overweight. So the genes can be survivable so long as we are careful!

  • Small business web site design

    4/3/2009 12:29:00 PM |

    nice  collection

  • Timothy Murphy, MD

    4/18/2009 4:14:00 PM |

    The amazing story of the ascent of the Keys Hypothesis regarding the connection between dietary fat and heart disease is well documented in "Good Calories, Bad Calories", by Gary Taubes.

    As a pediatrician, I do not often counsel about heart disease. But I do deal with obesity in children, and as I am now in my 50's, I am caring more because of my own health.

    The bottom line is that virtually everything we learned about preventing heart disease in medical school is wrong or untested, and an alternative hypothesis has existed that has been largely untested - yet is simpler (and therefore better).

    The role of glucose and insulin in the evolution of obesity and the development of heart disease is finally becoming clear(er), and with the definition of the Metabolic Syndrome, is becoming more "main stream". But the primary drivers of policy (NIH/NHLBI, FDA and ASDA) will not change their recommendations regarding carbohydrate intake.

    It is time for individuals to take charge of their own diet, and the information I have found here is all to the good. I am glad I found this blog.

    TM, Pittsburgh

  • Kelvin

    9/4/2009 12:45:22 PM |

    I am a classic CSI class and after running 5km for 1 1/2 years my blood stayed CSI classic as well, I didn'y follow a good diet but kept my weight down due to excerise - so then it happened - ventricle fibrulation - down for 6 min not breathing while I was shocked and had CPR - had bypass surgery - 46 yrs - read my story google "A hug for his life savers". Following a low card diet now my email is kwillikj@gmail.com

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 2:41:40 PM |

    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.

Loading
Cureality | Real People Seeking Real Cures

Can natural treatments "cure" or "treat" any disease?

According to current FDA policy, the answer is a flat "NO!"

No natural treatment, whether it be fish oil (as a nutritional supplement), l-arginine, vitamin D, magnesium, various flavonoids like theaflavin or resveratrol, can be declared to treat or cure any disease. That's why you see the evasive and vague wording on nutritional supplements, nutraceuticals, and various foods, like "Supports heart health" or "Supports healthy cholesterol". Claiming, for instance, that taking 6000 mg per day of a standard OTC fish will reduce triglycerides and stating so on the label of a supplement is unlawful and prosecutable.

Think what you will of Mr. Kevin Trudeau (author of Natural Cures They Don't Want You to Know About"): visionary, consumer advocate, David vs. the Goliath of the FDA and "Big Pharma", or huckster, scam artist, and one-time felon. But Trudeau got it right on one important issue: The FDA dictates what claims can be made to treat disease. On one of his ubiquitous informercials, Trudeau states:


"...the way the system works today, you have the Food and Drug Administration—the FDA, and you have the drug industry. They really work in tandem. Unfortunately, there’s an unholy alliance there. People don’t know that the majority of commissioners of the FDA, which allegedly regulates the drug industry, and the food industry—Food and Drug Administration, the commissioners of the FDA—the majority of them—go to work directly for the drug companies upon leaving the FDA and are paid millions and millions and millions of dollars. Now in any other format, that would be called bribery; that would be called a conflict of interest; that would be called payoffs. That’s exactly what’s happening right now. So what has occurred is the Food and Drug Administration is really working in tandem with the drug industry to protect their profits. Example: The Food and Drug Administration says that only a drug can diagnose, prevent, or cure any disease."


He goes on to say that

"...the Food and Drug Administration says only a drug--nothing else--can cure, prevent, or diagnose a disease. Therefore the Food and Drug Administration continues to call more and more and more things diseases. Therefore they eliminate all-natural remedies. No one can say what a natural remedy can do if it’s been classified as a disease. So Attention Deficit Disorder is now a disease. Therefore only a drug can cure, prevent, or diagnose it. Cancer is a disease. Acid reflux is now a disease. Obesity is now a disease."

(PLEASE do not construe this as an endorsement of Mr. Trudeau's overall opinions. But I do think he's right on this one point.)

The stated purpose of this restrictive policy is to protect the public. Indeed, in years past before protective legislation, ineffective and even poisonous products were commonly sold as therapeutic treatments. (Remember cocaine and morphine in cold remedies? Lead and other toxic agents were also common.) Unfortunately, a huge gap has emerged as clinical data accumulates that support the efficacy of nutritional treatments and other non-traditional methods to treat or alleviate diseases. Any disease, or anything construed as disease as Trudeau points out, can onlybe treated by a drug.

In the FDA's defense, they have made slow progress in allowing "claims" of benefits for several supplements and food substances, such as the beta-glucan of oat products, soy protein, and most recently barley (for cholesterol reduction). The scrutiny is quite thorough and the wording of the policy is quite specific. Regarding oat products, for instance, the policy states:

"FDA concluded that the beta-glucan soluble fiber of whole oats is the primary component responsible for the total and LDL blood cholesterol-lowering effects of diets that contain these whole oat-containing foods at appropriate levels. This conclusion is based on review of scientific evidence indicating a relationship between the soluble fiber in these whole oat-containing foods and a reduction in the
risk of coronary heart disease.

Food products eligible to bear the health claim include oat bran and rolled oats, such as oatmeal, and whole oat flour...To qualify for the health claim, the whole oat-containing food must provide at least 0.75 grams of soluble fiber per
serving. The amount of soluble fiber needed for an effect on cholesterol levels is about 3 grams per day."


(Source: FDA Talk Paper which can be viewed in its entirety at http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00782.html.)

In light of the boom in nutritional and non-traditional research that validate or refute efficacy, is such a policy still necessary? Or does it inhibit the open dissemination of information and result in a extraordinary monopolization of health treatment for the drug companies?

This debate will likely rage for the next two or more decades, particularly as drug companies are increasingly viewed as profit-seeking enterprises and more validation is gained by non-drug treatments.

For the moment, don't dismiss a "treatment" because it doesn't come by prescription. But don't reject a drugjust because it is a prescription. We need to strike a healthy, rational balance somewhere in between.

Can procedures alone keep you alive?

My days in the hospital remind me of what heart disease can be like when no preventive efforts are taken--what it used to be like even with my patients before taking a vigorous approach to prevention (though over 12 years ago).

Several cardiologists in my hospital, for instance, express skepticism that heart disease prevention works at all. Yes, they know about the statin cholesterol drug trials. But they claim that, given their experience with the power of coronary disease to overpower an individual's control, statin drugs are just "fluff". Coronary disease is a powerful process that can only begin to be harnessed with major procedures, i.e., a mechanical approach.

So these cardiologists routinely have their patients in the hospital, often once a year, sometimes more, for heart catheterization and "fixing" whatever requires fixing: balloon angioplasty, stents, various forms of atherectomy. Year in, year out, these patients return for their "maintenance" procedures. Their cardiologists maintain that this approach works. The patients go on eating what they like, taking little or no nutritional supplements, and medications prescribed by their primary care physicians for blood pressure, etc. But no real effort towards heart disease prevention beyond these minimal steps.

Can this work? Very little at-home, preventive efforts, but periodic "maintenance" procedures?

It can, perhaps, for a relatively short time of a few years, maybe up to 10 years. But it crumbles after this. The disease eventaully overwhelms the cardiologist's ability to stent or balloon this or that, since it has progressed and plaque has growth diffusely the entire period that maintenance procedures have been performed. In addition, acute illness still occurs with some frequency--in other words, plaque rupture is not affected just because there's a stent in the artery upstream or downstream.

Not to mention this can be misery on you and your life, with risk incurred during each procedure. It's also terribly expensive, with hospitalization easily costing $25,000-$50,000 or more each time. (Compare that to a $250 or so CT heart scan.)


As people become more aware of the potential tools for prevention of heart disease, fewer are willing to submit to the archaic and barbaric practice of "maintenance" heart procedures in lieu of prevention. But it still goes on. If you, or anybody you know, are on this pointless and doomed path, find a new doctor.




Bloodletting, another antiquated health practice

Support your local hospital: HAVE A HEART ATTACK!

I'm kidding, of course. But, in your hospital's secret agenda, that's not too far from the truth. Catastrophes lead to hospital procedures, which then yields major revenues.

Prevention, on the other hand, yields nothing for your hospital. No $8,000 to $12,000 for heart catheterization, several thousand more for a stent, $60,000-plus for a bypass, $25,000 or more for a defibrillator. In other words, prevention of heart attack and all its consequences deprive your hospital of a goldmine of revenue.

The doctors are all too often conspirators. I heard of yet another graphic example today. A man I didn't know called me out of the blue with a question. "I had a heart scan and I had a 'score' that I was told meant a moderate quantity of plaque in my arteries, a score of 157. My doctor said to ignore it. But I got another scan a year later and my score was 178. So I told this to my doctor and he said, 'Let's get you into the hospital. We'll set up a catheterization and then you'll get bypassed.' Of course, I was completely thrown off balance by this. Here I was thinking that the heart scan was showing that my prevention program needed improvement. But my doctor was talking about bypass surgery. Can you help? Does this sound right?"

No, this is absolutely not right. It's another tragedy like the many I hear about every day. Heart scans are, in fact, wonderfully helpful tools for prevention. This man was right: he felt great and the heart scan simply uncovered hidden plaque that should have triggered a conversation on how to prevent it from getting worse. But the doctor took it as a license to hustle the patient into the hospital. Ka-ching!

This sort of blatant money-generating behavior is far from rare. Don't become another victim of the cardiovascular money-making machine. Be alert, be skeptical, and question why. Of course, there are plenty of times when major heart procedures are necessary. But always insist on knowing the rationale behind such decisions, whether it's you or a loved one.

Hospitals contain experts in ILLNESS

Hospitals contain many experts in sickness. This seems obvious. But walk down the hallways of any hospital, and you'll quickly be convinced that hospitals contain almost no experts in health.

People (hospital staff, that is, not the patients) in hospitals are especially good at identifying and treating disease. They lack knowledge of health.

If your nurse is 100 lbs overweight and struggles to walk down the hall because of arthritis in both knees, would you entrust her with health advice?

If your doctor sits down in the cafeteria and eats his lunch of a ham sandwich with cheese on a bun, fried onion rings, and a milkshake and pastry, can you believe that he/she possesses any insight into health and nutrition?

If your physical therapist or cardiac rehabilitation counselor struggles nearly as much as you while climbing a single flight of stairs, can you accept their advice on how to regain your stamina and use exerise to full health advantage?

The answer to all these questions is, of course, no. Hospital staff are generally expert at dressing surgical wounds, stopping bleeding, identifying infections, and providing the support services for surgical and diagnostic procedures. In contrast, they are generally miserable at conveying genuine health advice. They certainly fall short in being examples of health themselves.

To hospitals and their staff, health is a temporary situation that persists only until you become ill. Illness is an inevitability in the hospital staff mindset. Health is a temporary state in between illnesses.

We need to shake off this perverse mentality. Health is the state of life that should dominate our practices and philosophies. Illness via the occasional catastrophe, e.g., broken leg from skiing, car accident, etc., is the province of hospitals. We should gravitate towards this philosphy and away from the over-reliance on hospitals that has come to dominate our present perceptions of health. Hospitals are not glamorous. They are, for the most part, profit-seeking businesses intent on portraying themselves as champions of health.

When I walk down the halls of hospitals, I am shocked and ashamed at the extraordinary examples of ill-health presented by hospital staff. Yet they falsely paint themselves as experts in both illness and health. Don't believe it for a second.

Are there still unexplored causes of heart disease?

I met a woman today. She had her first heart attack at age 37. She just had her 2nd heart attack this morning, at age 40.

Several issues are surprising about her story. First, she's pre-menopausal. Heart attacks before menopause are unusual. We'll occasionally see women have a heart attack before or during menopausal years only if they're heavy smokers and/or they have had diabetes (either type I or type II) for many years. But this young woman had neither. She is slender and has never smoked.

Even more surprising are her basic lipid values: LDL cholesterol 35 mg/dl, HDL 150 mg/dl, triglycerides 317 mg/dl. This is a very unusual pattern.

Unfortunately, this is all developing acutely in the hospital. (I've just met her today--she's not a Track Your Plaquer!) Lipoprotein analysis would be extremely interesting. In particular, I'd like to see whether she has any other markers besides elevated triglycerides of a "post-prandial" abnormality, i.e., persistence of abnormal particles after eating. The high triglycerides make this quite likely.

If this proves true, the omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil will be a lifesaving treatment for her, since they dramatically reduce both triglycerides as well as persistent postprandial particles like intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL). (Track Your Plaque Members: See the Special Report on Postprandial Abnormalities on the present home page at www.cureality.com for a more in-depth discussion of this fascinating collection of patterns that is just started to be explored.)

In the real world, especially acute care medicine, there's always a kicker: she speaks no English. Unfortunately, communicating the intricacies of a powerful program like ours that aims to identify all causes of heart disease, then corrects then and aims for coronary plaque regression, is difficult if not impossible.

I also do occasionally worry that, given this woman's extraordinary risk at a young age, and overall very unusual lipid patterns (HDL 150?!), if there are causes presently beyond our reach. We have to make use of the tools available to us for now.

Everything causes heart attack!

The media are presently gushing about a recent study that associates caffeine intake with heart attack.

CBS News: That cup of coffee you're craving might not be such a good idea. Research in the September issue of Epidemiology suggests coffee can trigger a heart attack within an hour in some people.


Some reporters and their quoted sources are musing about whether it's the caffeine, cream vs. other whiteners, time of day, interaction with other risk factors, etc.

My advice: Get a grip! How many relatively benign, every day factors in life can be blamed for dire health risks?

The problem with many of these studies is that they are cross-sectional. They do not enroll participants, then "treat" with coffee (or other substance in question) vs. placebo. In other words, it is not a randomized trial, the sort of trial necessary to prove a hypothesis. That's all that can be generated by a study like this one: a hypothesis.

Perhaps there's a bit of warning for the person with uncorrected lipids and lipoproteins, has no idea that they have extensive coronary plaque because they've never had a heart scan, and have a slovenly lifestyle. Maybe that person might have exaggerated risk from a cup of coffee.

But for us, involved and intensively addressing all causes of coronary plaque to the point of stabilizing or reducing it, coffee is likely a non-issue.

For more conversation on coffee and this report, go to the www.cureality.com home page.

Excessive Heart Procedures Makes New York Times Headline


One example of flagrant cardiac procedure excess has made New York Times headlines:


Heart Procedure Is Off the Charts in an Ohio City
The number of angioplasties performed in Elyria is so high that Medicare is starting to ask questions.

(The full article can be accessed through the New York Times website at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/business/18stent.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5094&en=b81be5f43f98a99b&hp&ex=1155960000&partner=homepage)



Cardiologists in little Elyria, Ohio, about a 30-minute drive west of Cleveland, do more coronary angioplasties and insert more stents than any other location in the U.S.--four times more than the national average, three times more than the Cleveland average. They perform even more than the recently-indicted cardiologist in Louisiana, who performed twice the national average of procedures.


The Times article, part of a series about financial incentives in medical care, provides a responsible and incredibly balanced report on the situation in Elyria. I have to give them credit, because from the eyes of a colleague (myself), this looks like blatant and extreme profiteering: "cathing for dollars".

I find it outrageous that this group of cardiologists claims that they have some special insight into heart care that justifies this extraordinary reliance on heart procedures. There's bound to be variation in practice patterns, but this is so outside the norm that I believe criminal behavior will be exposed. In fact, I believe that even the "norm", or average, rate of procedures is also excessive.

This is symptomatic of the perverse equation in heart disease care. If there's money to be made in major heart procedures, who wants to bother with prevention? Programs like the Track Your Plaque program present real potential to stop coronary heart disease in its tracks for many, if not most, participants--but don't expect to hear about it from your cardiologist. Don't expect to hear about it from the increasingly hospital-employed primary care physician.

Hopefully, media exposure like that in the New York Times is just the beginning of a public re-analysis of not only what's wrong with medicine today, but recognition of the tremendous power in preventive strategies when everyone stops being so enamored with hospital-based procedures. CT-based heart scanning that ignites your heart disease prevention program is your way to dodge the mainstream obsession with procedures.

More on "Bio-identical hormones" and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals

In October 2005, Wyeth petitioned the FDA, requesting that it completely ban the bioidentical alternatives that women have been using in ever-increasing numbers to achieve optimal hormone balance. With bioidentical replacement therapy clearly reducing its market share, Wyeth asked the FDA to outlaw all compounded bioidentical hormone formulations that compete with its own discredited drugs. If Wyeth is successful, then menopausal women will have no choice other than to take potentially life-threatening hormone drugs or to forgo hormone replacement therapy altogether, thus enduring the physically and emotionally debilitating effects of menopause-induced hormone depletion.

Dave Tuttle
Life Extension Magazine
August, 2006



For more commentary on Wyeth Pharmaceutical's outrageous and brazen petition to the FDA to bar prescription "bio-identical" hormones, i.e., hormones that are identical to natural human forms, read Life Extension's article, Health Freedom Under Attack!
Drugmaker Seeks to Deny Access to Bioidentical Hormones





This well-researched article is in the August, 2006 issue of Life Extension Magazine. The article can also be accessed online at http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/aug2006_cover_attack_01.htm

or go to www.lef.org and click on the August, 2006 issue.

The author, Dave Tuttle, details the baseless arguments raised by Wyeth, a pathetic and amazingly selfish act in the name of protecting profits for Premarin, their prescription agent. It's bad enough to be selling this worthless drug. It's even worse--criminal, in my mind--to try to stamp out our right to have a physician write a prescription for a pharmacy to mix up hormones identical to that humans produce, individualized to our needs.

If you are as angry about this as I am, please go to the Life Extension online reprint that provides access to the International Academy of Compounding Pharmacists website to send the FDA an e-mail describing your opinion, or go to www.iacprx.org.

How accurate is LDL cholesterol?

Watch TV and you'd get the impression that the world revolves around LDL cholesterol: Commercials for Lipitor, Zetia, Vytorin, etc., all drugs to reduce cholesterol (total and LDL). Your doctor looks first and often only at LDL cholesterol.

If there's so much attention paid to LDL, how accurate is it? 100%? 90%? 80%?

Well, it varies widely. Occasionally, it's truly accurate, but most of the time it's miserably inaccurate . Every single day, I see people with LDL cholesterols that underestimates true (measured) LDL by 40%, 50%, and even over 100%. In other words, LDL cholesterol might be 120 mg/dl by the conventional method, but the genuine measured value might be 160 mg/dl, or even 240 mg/dl. It can be that far off--and it's not rare.

The converse can occasionally be true, though rarely in my experience: that conventional LDL overestimates true LDL. I saw someone in the office today like this, with a conventional LDL of 142 mg/dl but a true measured LDL of 115 mg/dl. I may see one or two more people like this the rest of this year.




Why is LDL so inaccurate? Several reasons:

--LDL in most labs is calculated, not measured. The "Friedewald calculation" derives LDL by substracting HDL and triglycerides (divided by 5) from total cholesterol. The higher triglycerides are, especially above 150 mg/dl, the more inaccurate the calculation becomes. As HDL drops below 50 mg/dl, this also introduces greater and greater inaccuracy.

--LDL particles vary in size. A more accurate representation and measure of LDL's dangers are therefore found in measures of LDL particle number , rather than a weight-based measure or calculation. LDL particle number can be measure as just that, LDL particle number (NMR), or as apoprotein B, the protein in LDL that occurs one apoB per LDL.

I liken conventionally calculated LDL cholesterol to a broken speedometer. You simply won't have an accurate measure of how fast you're going, though you may have a ballpark sense. But try telling that to the state patrol.

Or, as a cardiologist colleague said to me in a similar conversation about LDL: "Well, it's better than nothing!"

The lesson: If you're interested in plaque control, and control or reduction of heart scan score, you need a measured LDL, preferably LDL particle number by NMR or an apoprotein B. Another option is "direct" LDL.

Green tea: friend or faux?

The www.HealthCastle.com website is a helpful website on healthy eating that sends out a free newsletter. The content is all produced by licensed dietitions and nutritionists. Although I don't agree with everything said on the site, there's still some good information.

I'm a fan of green tea. Although I believe the effects are relatively modest (weight reduction, cholesterol reduction, anti-oxidation, etc., with theaflavin and/or green tea as a beverage,) they alerted me to the fact that the Lipton Green Tea product is one you should steer clear of. Here are their comments:



"More like Soft drink than Green Tea!With 200 calories, 13 teaspoons of added sugar and a long list of artificial ingredients, Lipton Iced Green Tea is more like a bottle of soft drink than tea, in our opinion."


The Lipton website lists the ingredients:

Water, high fructose corn syrup, citric acid, green tea, sodium hexametaphosphate, ascorbic acid (to protect flavor), honey, natural flavors, phosphoric acid, sodium benzoate (preserves freshness), potassium sorbate (preserves freshness), calcium disodium edta (to protect flavor), caramel color, tallow 5, blue1.

An 8 oz serving yields 21 grams of sugar. If you drink the full 20 oz. bottle (not hard to do!), that yields 52.5 grams of sugar! You will also notice that the second ingredient listed after water is high fructose corn syrup. This ingredient, you may recall, causes triglycerides to skyrocket, causes an insatiable sweet tooth, and is a probable contributor to obesity and diabetes.

In their defense, the Lipton people do also offer a sugar-free alternative without the excessive sweeteners and empty calories.

Do the Lipton products offer the same kind of benefits from green tea catechins (flavonoids) offered by freshly brewed teas? This product has not been formally tested by an independent lab to my knowledge, though, in general, commercially prepared and bottled teas tend to have dramatically less catechin/flavonoid content compared to brewed. (The USDA website provides access to an extraordinary collection of flavonoid food content at their USDA Database for the Flavonoid Content of Selected Foods - 2003. You'll find it at http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=6231.)

I think the HealthCastle people got it right: Brew your own, making sure to steep for at least 3 minutes. Alternatively, a green tea or theaflavin supplement provides many of the benefits. (Theaflavin has been used in trials at doses of 375 to 900 mg per day.) An in-depth report on green tea will be coming in a future Special Report on the www.cureality.com Membership website.