Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g

Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons

Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient

Ingredients: High Fructose Corn Syrup, Vinegar, Concentrated Tomato Juice (Water, Tomato Paste), Water, Modified Food Starch, Salt, Honey, Contains Less Than 2% of Molasses, Natural Flavor, Paprika, Spice, Mustard Flour, Guar Gum, Red 40.

A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient

Ingredients: Tomato puree (water, tomato paste), high fructose corn syrup, vinegar, salt, water dried onions, contains less than 2% of black pepper, modified food starch, citric acid, dried parsley, dried garlic, xanthan gum, caramel color, potassium sorbate and calcium disodium EDTA as preservatives, molasses, corn syrup, sugar, spices, tamarind, natural flavor

Another in a series of data extrapolations that attempt to predict long-term cancer risk from medical radiation exposure was published in the July 13, 2009 Archives of Internal Medicine, viewable here.

Over the years, I've fussed about the radiation dose used by some centers for CT heart scans. (Note: I'm talking about CT heart scans, not CT coronary angiograms, an entirely different test with different radiation exposure.) In the "old" days, when electron-beam devices (EBT) were the best on the block, the old single-slice CT scanners (the predecessor of the current 64-slice MDCT scanners) exposed patients to ungodly quantities of radiation, while the EBT devices required very small quantities (0.5 mSv or about the equivalent of 4 standard chest x-rays or one mammogram).

But CT technology has advanced considerably. While EBT has been phased out (although it was an exceptional technology, GE acquired the small California manufacturer, then promptly scrapped the operation; you can guess why), multi-detector CT (MDCT) technology has improved in speed, image quality, and radiation exposure.

While it has improved, radiation exposure still remains an issue. The authors of the study applied the scanning protocols used at three hospitals and those in several CT heart scan studies, then calculated radiation exposure. They found a more than ten-fold range of exposure, from 0.8 mSv to 10.5 mSv. (All scanners were MDCT, none EBT.)

That's precisely what I've been worrying about: In the rapid rush to develop new devices, radiation exposure has often been a neglected issue. While some scan centers do an excellent job and take steps to minimize exposure, others barely lift a finger and consequently expose their patients to unnecessary radiation.

However, it's not as bad as it sounds. For one, the study included 16-slice MDCT scanners, a scanner type that I warned people to not use because of radiation. On the current most popular 64-slice devices, much lower radiation exposure is possible, on the order of 0.8-1.2 mSv routinely--if the center takes the effort.

This study, while eye-opening, will achieve some good: CT heart scans are here to stay. But the day-to-day practice of heart scanning should be:

1) standardized
2) conducted with radiation exposure as low as possible, preferably <0.8 mSv

To read more about this issue, below I've reprinted a 2007 full Track Your Plaque Special Report, CT Heart Scans and Radiation: The Real Story.

CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

“My personal opinion is that many patients today who are receiving multiple CT scans may well be getting at least comparable doses to subjects that have now developed malignancies from x-ray radiation received in the 1930s and '40s. And, similar to those days when the doses were unknown, the dose that patients receive today over a course of years of multiple CT scans is also completely unknown . . .

“I recommend that all healthcare providers become familiar with the concept that 1 in 1000 CT studies of the chest, abdomen, or pelvis may result in cancer.”

Richard C. Semelka, MD

Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology

University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

Is this just hype to generate headlines? Or is the truth buried in the enormous marketing clout of the medical device industry, among which the imaging device manufacturers reign supreme?

It’s been over 110 years since radiation was first used for medical imaging. Over those years, it has had its share of misadventures.

In the 1930s and 1940s, before the dangers of radiation were recognized, shoe shoppers had shoes fitted using an x-ray device of the foot to assess fit. High doses of radiation were used to shrink enlarged tonsils and extinguish overactive thyroid glands. Attitudes towards radiation were so lax that doctors commonly permitted themselves to be exposed without protection day after day, year after year, until an unexpected rise in blood cancers like leukemia was observed. As recently as the 1970s and 1980s, cancers like Hodgkins’ disease were treated with high doses of radiation, also leading to radiation-induced diseases decades later.

Not all radiation is bad. Radiation can also be used as a therapeutic tool and even today remains a useful and reasonably effective method to reduce the size, sometimes eliminate, certain types of cancer. Forty percent of people with cancer now receive some form of radiation as part of their treatment (Ron E 2003).

Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

Estimates vary, but most experts estimate that medical imaging provides approximately 15% of total lifetime exposure. In other words, radiation exposure from medical imaging is simply a small portion of total exposure that develops over the years of life. Exposure can be much higher, however, in a specific individual who undergoes repeated radiation imaging or treatment of one sort or another.

For all of us, exposure to medical radiation is part of lifetime exposure from multiple sources, added to the radiation we receive from the world around us. Just by living on earth, we are exposed to radiation from space and naturally-occurring radioactive compounds, and receive somewhere around 3.0 mSv per year (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). (Doses for radiation exposure are commonly expressed in milliSieverts, mSv, a measure that reflects whole-body radiation exposure.) People living in high-altitude locales like Colorado get exposed to an additional 30–50% ambient radiation (1.0–1.5 mSv more per year).

Much of the information on radiation exposure comes from studies like the Life Span Study that, since 1961, has tracked 120,000 Japanese exposed to radiation from the atomic bombs dropped in 1945 (Preston DL et al 2003). Although regarded as a high-dose exposure study for obvious reasons, there are actually thousands of people in this study who were exposed to lesser quantities of radiation (because of distance from the bomb sites) who still display a “dose-response” increased risk for cancer many years later in life. Radiation exposures of as little as 5–20 mSv showed a slight increase in lifetime risk.

Occupational and excessive medical exposure to radiation also provides a “laboratory” to examine radiation risk. Miners exposed to radon gas; patients exposed to the imaging agent, Thorotrast, containing radioactive isotope thorium dioxide and used as an x-ray contrast agent in the 1930s and 1940s and possesses the curious property of lingering in the body for over 30 years after administration; radium injections administered between 1945 and 1955 to treat diseases like ankylosing spondylitis and tuberculosis, all provide researchers an opportunity to study the long-term effects of various types of radiation exposure over many years (Harrison JD et al 2003).

The excess exposure of workers and several hundred thousand nearby residents to the Mayak nuclear plant in Russia has also revealed a “dose-response” relationship, with increasing exposure leading to more cancers, including leukemia and solid cancers of the bone, liver, and lung (Shilnikova NS et al 2003). Nuclear waste released into the Techa river between 1948 and 1956 contaminated drinking water used by over 100,000 Russians. A plant explosion in 1957 also released an excess of radiation into the atmosphere, yielding exposure via inhalation. Some sources estimate that at least 272,000 people have been affected by radiation from the Mayak plant. This unfortunate situation has, however, yielded plenty of data on radiation exposure and its long-term effects.

It’s also been known for several decades that people who receive therapeutic radiation for treatment of cancer, even with the reduced doses now employed, are subject to increased risk of a second cancer consequent to the radiation treatment.

From experiences like this, radiation experts estimate that an exposure of 10 mSv increases a population’s risk for cancer by 1 in 1000 (Semelka RC et al 2007).

This question was recently thrust into the spotlight with publication of a study from Columbia University in New York suggesting that a 20-year old woman would be exposed to a lifetime risk of cancer as high as 1 in 143 consequent to the radiation received during a CT coronary angiogram. (Important note: This was estimated risk from a CT coronary angiogram, not a simple heart scan that we advocate for the Track Your Plaque program.) The risk at the low end of the spectrum would be in an 80-year old man (because of the shorter period of time to develop cancer), with a risk of 1 in 5017. If “gating” to the EKG is added (which many scan centers do indeed perform nowadays), risk for a 60-year old woman is estimated at 1 in 715; risk for a 60-year old male, 1 in 1911 (Einstein AJ et al 2007). This study generated some criticism, since it did not directly involve human subjects, but used “phantoms” or x-ray dummies to simulate x-ray exposure. Nonetheless, the point was made: CT coronary angiograms in current practice do indeed expose the patient to substantial quantities of radiation, sufficient to pose a lifetime risk of cancer.

The media frenzy

The NY Times ran an article called With Rise in Radiation Exposure, Experts Urge Caution on Tests in which they stated:

"According to a new study, the per-capita dose of ionizing radiation from clinical imaging exams in the United States increased almost 600 percent from 1980 to 2006. In the past, natural background radiation was the leading source of human exposure; that has been displaced by diagnostic imaging procedures, the authors said."

“This is an absolutely sentinel event, a wake-up call,” said Dr. Fred A. Mettler Jr., principal investigator for the study, by the National Council on Radiation Protection. “Medical exposure now dwarfs that of all other sources.”

Radiation is a widely used imaging tool in medicine. Although CT scans of the brain, bones, chest, abdomen, and pelvis account for only 5% of all medical radiation procedures, they are responsible for nearly 50% of medical radiation used. It’s been known for years that increasing radiation exposure increases cancer risk over many years, but the boom of newer, faster devices that provide more detailed images has opened the floodgates to expanded use of CT scanners.

But before we join in the hysteria, let's first take a look at exposure measured for different sorts of tests:

Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

Head CT 1 – 2 mSv
Pelvis CT 3 – 4 mSv
Chest CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen/pelvis CT 8 – 11 mSv
Coronary CT angiography 5 – 12 mSv

Non-CT

Hand radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Chest radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Mammogram 0.3 – 0.6 mSv
Barium enema exam 3 – 6 mSv
Coronary angiogram 5 – 10 mSv
Sestamibi myocardial perfusion (per injection) 6 – 9 mSv
Thallium myocardial perfusion (per injection) 26 – 35 mSv

Source: Cynthia H. McCullough, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

A plain, everyday chest x-ray, providing less than 0.1 mSv exposure, provides about the same quantity of radiation exposure as flying in an airplane for four hours, or the same amount of radiation from exposure to our surroundings for 11–12 days. Similar exposure arises from dental x-rays.

If you have a heart scan on an EBT device, then your exposure is 0.5-0.6 mSv, roughly the same as a mammogram or several standard chest x-rays.

With a heart scan on a 16- or 64-slice multidetector device, exposure is ideally around 1.0-2.0 mSv, about the same as 2-3 mammograms, though dose can vary with this technology depending on how it is performed (gated to the EKG, device settings, etc.)

CT coronary angiography presents a different story. This is where radiation really escalates and puts the radiation exposure issue in the spotlight. As Dr. Cynthia McCullough's chart shows above, the radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms is 5-12 mSv, the equivalent of 100 or more chest x-rays or 20 mammograms. Now, that's a problem.

The exposure is about the same for a pelvic or abdominal CT. The problem is that some centers are using CT coronary angiograms as screening procedures and even advocating their use annually. This is where the alarm needs to be sounded. These tests, as wonderful as the information and image quality can be, are not screening tests. Just like a pelvic CT, they are diagnostic tests done for legitimate medical questions. They are not screening tests to be applied broadly and used year after year.

It’s also worth giving second thought to any full body scan you might be considering. These screening studies include scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. These scans, performed for screening, expose the recipient to approximately 10 mSv of radiation (Radiological Society of North American, 2007). Debate continues on whether the radiation exposure is justified, given the generally asymptomatic people who generally undergo these tests.

Always be mindful of your radiation exposure, as the NY Times article rightly advises. However, don't be so frightened that you are kept from obtaining truly useful information from, for instance, a CT heart scan (not angiography) at a modest radiation cost.

Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

Unfortunately, practicing physicians and those involved in providing CT scans are generally unconcerned with radiation exposure. The majority, in fact, are entirely unaware of the dose of radiation required for most CT scan studies and unaware of the cancer risk involved. It is therefore up to the individual to insist on a discussion of the type of scanner being used, the radiation dose delivered (at least in general terms), the necessity of the test, alternative methods to obtain the same diagnostic information, all in the context of lifetime radiation exposure.

Our concerns about radiation exposure all boil down to concern over lifetime risk for cancer, a disease that strikes approximately 20% of all Americans. Many factors contribute to cancer risk, including obesity, excessive saturated fat intake, low fiber intake, lack of vitamin D, repeated sunburns, excessive alcohol use, smoking, exposure to pesticides and other organochemicals, asbestos and other industrial exposures, electromagnetic wave exposure, and genetics. Radiation is just one source of risk, though to some degree a controllable one.

Some people, on hearing this somewhat disturbing discussion, refuse to ever have another medical test requiring radiation. That’s the wrong attitude. It makes no more sense than wearing lead shielding on your body 24 hours a day to reduce exposure from the atmosphere. Taken in the larger context of life, radiation exposure is just one item on a list of potentially harmful factors.

It is, however, worth some effort to minimize radiation exposure over your lifetime, particularly before age 60, and by submitting to high-dose testing only when truly necessary, or when the potential benefits outweigh the risks. Thus, with heart scans and CT coronary angiography, some thought to the potential benefits of knowing your score or the information gained from the CT angiogram need to be considered before undergoing the test. Often the practical difficulty, of course, is that your risk for heart disease simply cannot be known until after the test.

In our view, in the vast majority of instances a simple CT heart scan can serve the simple but crucial role of quantifying risk for heart attack and atherosclerotic plaque. CT heart scans yield this information with less than a tenth of the radiation exposure of a CT coronary angiogram. In people without symptoms and a normal stress test, there is rarely a need for CT coronary angiography with present day levels of radiation exposure. Perhaps as technology advances and the radiation required to generate images is reduced, then we should reconsider.

Early experiences are suggesting that the newest 256-slice scanners, now being developed but not yet available, will cut the dose exposure of 64-slice CT angiograms in half (from 27.8 mSv to 14.1 mSv in a recent Japanese study). The 256-slice scanners will allow scanning that is faster over a larger area in a given period of time.

Thankfully, the scanner manufacturers are increasingly sensitive to the radiation issue and have been working on methods to reduce radiation exposure. However, it still remains substantial.

References:
Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007 Jul 18;298(3):317–323.

Harrison JD, Muirhead CR. Quantitative comparisons of cancer induction in humans by internally deposited radionuclides and external radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 2003 Jan;79(1):1–13.

Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzyky M et al. Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates. Circulation 2006;113:1305–1310.

Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard J, Saini S. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004;230:619–628.

Mayo JR, Aldrich J, Müller NL. Radiation exposure at chest CT: A statement of the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2003; 228:15–21.

Mori S, Nishizawa K, Kondo C, Ohno M, Akahane K, Endo M. Effective doses in subjects undergoing computed tomography cardiac imaging with the 256-multislice CT scanner. Eur J Radiol 2007 Jul 10; [Epub ahead of print].

Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Ron E, Mabuchi K. Dose response and temporal patterns of radiation-associated solid cancer risks. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):43–46.

Ron E. Cancer risks from medical radiation. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):47–59.

Shilnikova NS, Preston DL, Ron E et al. Cancer mortality risk among workers at the Mayak nuclear complex. Radiation Res 2003 Jun;159(6):787–798.

Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr, Huda W. Imaging strategies to reduce the risk of radiation in CT studies, including selective substitution with MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007 May;25(5):900–9090.

Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

A carefully-conducted study by a collaborative research group at University of California-Berkeley has finally closed the lid on the fuss over fructose vs. glucose and its purported adverse effects.

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation--3% increased intra-abdominal fat with glucose; 14.4% with fructose. (Intraabdominal fat is the variety that blocks insulin responses and causes diabetes and inflammation.)

2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol but double the increase for Apoprotein B (an index of the number of LDL particles, similar to NMR LDL particle number).

3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, compared to 13.3% with glucose.

4) While glucose (curiously) reduced the net postprandial (after-eating) triglyceride response (area under the curve, AUC), fructose increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%.

The authors propose that fructose specifically increases liver VLDL production, the lipoprotein particle that yields abnormal after-eating particles, increased LDL, and provides building blocks to manufacture small LDL particles. The authors also persuasively propose that fructose metabolism, unlike glucose, is not inhibited (via feedback loop) by energy intake, i.e., it's as if you are always starving.

Add to this the data that show that fructose increases uric acid (that causes gout and may act as a coronary risk factor), induces leptin resistance, causes metabolic syndrome (pre-diabetes), and increases appetite, and it is clear that fructose is yet another common food additive that, along with wheat, is likely a big part of the reason Americans are fat and diabetic.

Fructose is concentrated, of course, in high-fructose corn syrup, comprising anywhere from 42-90% of total weight. Fructose also composes 50% of sucrose (table sugar). Fructose also figures prominently in many fruits; among the worst culprits are raisins (30% fructose) and honey (41% fructose).

Also, beware of low-fat or non-fat salad dressings (rich with high-fructose corn syrup), ketchup, beer, fruit drinks, fruit juices, all of which are rich sources of this exceptionally fattening, metabolism-bypassing, LDL cholesterol/small LDL/ApoB increasing compound. Ironically, this means that many low-fat foods meant to reduce cholesterol actually increase it when they contain fructose in any form.

When you hear or say "fructose," run the other way, regardless of what the Corn Refiners Association says.

Matt came to me because his doctor couldn't reduce his LDL cholesterol.

His doctor had prescribed Zocor (simvastatin), Lipitor, Crestor, even pravastatin, all of which resulted in incapacitating muscle aches and weakness within a week of starting. No surprise, Matt had a jaundiced view of statin drugs.

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

--72% of LDL was small LDL, a moderately severe pattern. (This means that small LDL comprised 112 mg/dl of the total 155 mg/dl LDL; large LDL comprised 43 mg/dl--small LDL was the problem.)

--HDL 42 mg/dl --Triglycerides 133 mg/dl

--No lipoprotein(a)

Beyond lipoproteins, Matt proved severely deficient in vitamin D with a starting level of 18 ng/ml.

Matt's doctor had advised that he avoid salt, as his blood pressure had been borderline high. His thyroid assessment disclosed a TSH of 3.89 mIU/ml with thyroid hormones free T3 and free T4 in the lower half of the normal range.

I therefore asked Matt to:

--Eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars to reduce small LDL
--Add iodine
--Supplement 6000 units of an oil-based vitamin D preparation
--Take fish oil to provide at least 1800 mg EPA + DHA per day
--Take Armour Thyroid 1 grain per day

Several months later on this program, Matt had a repeat basic lipid panel:

--LDL 82 mg/dl--a 47% reduction

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

--Triglycerides 60 mg/dl--a 55% decrease

In addition, vitamin D was 66 ng/ml, TSH was <1.0 mIU/ml with free T3 and free T4 in the upper half of the "reference range." Matt also felt great.

While the numbers could be slightly better, Matt had made tremendous progress towards achieving perfect values.

There you have it: Marked correction of cholesterol values, no statin drugs involved.

Even if you’re not interested in building big muscles like a bodybuilder, there are health benefits to increasing muscle mass: increased bone density, better balance, and fewer injuries. Greater muscle mass means higher metabolic rate, improved insulin responsiveness, lower blood sugar. The inevitable loss of muscle mass of aging can lead to frailty, an increasingly common situation for the elderly. Muscle loss be reversed, health improved as a result.

Since its introduction in 1994, creatine has exploded in popularity, particularly among bodybuilders and athletes interested in gaining muscle mass and strength. But creatine is not just for young weight lifters. If you are just interested in increasing muscle mass for its health benefits, then creatine is something to consider.

A study of creatine supplementation in men, average age 70 years, demonstrated that, when creatine was combined with strength training, it increased muscle mass 250% better than placebo (7.26 lb muscle vs 2.86 lb muscle), along with improved leg strength and endurance. The same group also demonstrated 3.2% increased bone density (measured using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) after 12 weeks in participants taking creatine with strength training, while the control (no strength training, no creatine) group decreased by 1.0%.

Benefits are not confined to men. Similar results were observed in another study that included women (age 65 and older), with outcomes in females comparable to males. This is especially important for females, given the common development of osteopenia and osteoporosis in postmenopausal females.

Other studies have shown that benefits are maintained after stopping creatine supplementation.

The most popular form of creatine is the monohydrate, generally taken as a “loading” phase of 15-20 grams per day (generally split into 3-4 doses of 5 grams) for 5-7 days, followed by weeks to months of 2-5 grams per day.

An alternative form, polyethylene glycosylated creatine (PEG-creatine) provides similar effects at one-fourth to one-half the dose of creatine, i.e., 1.25-2.5 grams per day.

Despite previous concerns about kidney toxicity with prolonged use, another study showed that athletes taking creatine for up to 21 months have shown no adverse effects on kidney function, lipid (cholesterol) values, or other basic health measures.

Having healthy muscle mass doesn't make you bulge like a bodybuilder. With modest efforts at strength training, augmented with creatine supplementation, you have a wonderful tool to feel better, reduce injury, increase bone density, and combat abnormal insulin resistance, not to mention accelerate weight loss, since lean muscle mass consumes energy.

There has been a lot of debate over whether or not “bio-identical” hormones, i.e., hormones identical to the human form, are superior to non-human forms dispensed by the drug industry.

The FDA is currently taking steps to clamp down on availability of bioidentical hormones and their claims of superiority, despite a groundswell of grassroot support for them. The argument has pitted anti-aging practitioners and the public, as well as the likes of Oprah and Suzanne Somers, against Big Pharma and the FDA, the two forces trying to squash the bioidentical hormone movement.

Regardless of what heavy-handed approach the FDA takes, we already have access to hormones identical to the original human form. It requires no prescription and yields downstream hormones that the human body recognizes as human.

That "bioidentical" hormone is pregnenolone.

Pregnenolone is the first biochemical step in the conversion of dietary cholesterol (yes-cholesterol!) to numerous other hormones. Pregnenolone is the source of the hormones that lie at the center of the bioidentical hormone controversy: estrogens, progesterone, and testosterone. We therefore already have our own over-the-counter, non-prescription form of bioidentical hormones.

Supplemental pregnenolone increases estrogens (mildly), progesterone, and testosterone. Prenenonlone supplementation simply provide more of the basic substrate for hormone production. The increase in hormones is usually modest, not as vigorous as direct hormone replacement like, say, testosterone or progesterone topical creams. But pregnenolone can be useful when small to moderate increases are desired, such as for reduction of Lp(a). A theoretical downside is that pregnenonlone can also convert to cortisol, the adrenal gland hormone that regulates fluid and blood pressure. However, I've not seen any measurable increase in cortisol with low doses of pregnenonlone and limited data suggest that it does not. Pregnenolone also converts to the other adrenal gland hormone, DHEA; I call DHEA "the hormone of assertiveness," since some people who take too much pregnenolone (or direct DHEA) acquire excessive assertiveness.

The key to pregnenolone supplementation is to proceed gradually and begin with a small dose, e.g., 5 mg every morning. Hormonal assessment is best conducted periodically to assess the effects and to determine whether a dose adjustment is in order.

Heart Scan Blog reader, Roger, described his near-miss experience with CT coronary angiograms.

Hoping to obtain just a simple CT heart scan, he was bullied to get a CT coronary angiogram instead. Roger held strong and just asked for the test that we all should be having, a CT heart scan.

I posted yesterday that I was about to have my first CT heart scan...well, it was an interesting experience for reasons I coudn't possibly have anticipated. Dr. Davis has commented in the past on the confusion in the media about the difference between a CT calcium score scan, and a CT angiography, the latter requiring a far higher dose of radiation. I assumed this was a source of confusion only among patients and lay folks, but, lo and behold, I discovered today that doctors--or at least their helpers--can be just as confused.

Here's my story:

After checking in, I asked the receptionist to see if she had any information on whether my medical insurance was covering the scan. She called someone, and I heard her say over the phone, "He's here for a CT angiogram." At that point my ears perked up. I explained I wasn't here for a CT angiogram, only a regular CT scan. "Well, do you want to call your doctor and talk about this?" she asked. No, I said, I would like to ask one of their folks to verify exactly what test my doctor had ordered. As luck would have it, the technician was walking by at that point. "Is this a CT angiogram?" the receptionist asked. "No, it's just a CT calcium score scan" was the reply. But apparently the technician had been unclear herself, and had called my doctor just to verify. In other words, the "default" procedure they were accustomed to doing at this august Houston vascular clinic was a CT angiogram.

In fact, my appointment was even listed on their calendar as a "CT angiogram." For all I know, my insurance will be billed for the same. Later, during the procedure, the technician acted surprised I wasn't doing the "full test." I explained I had minimal risk factors (actually only one, an HDL of 34 a couple of years ago, which has since been raised to 50 partly as a result of taking advice from this site), but that my doctor was progressive (he is an MD for the Houston Astros) and thought it was a good idea since there is heart disease in my immediate family. My doctor did indeed prescribe only a CT calcium score scan, but it seems to have been an order that this clinic, at least, wasn't all that used to seeing.

So, I guess the message is: we have a lot of educating to do. Had I not been a faithful reader of these pages, I certainly wouldn't have known what kind of test I was about to get, or what questions to ask!

As for the heart scan itself, a piece of cake. If you can hold your breath, you can take this test. Just be sure it is the right one!

Why the "push" towards CT coronary angiograms and not "just" a CT heart scan? Well, I know it's shocking but it's . . . money!

CT coronary angiograms yield around $1800-$4000 per test. CT heart scans yield somewhere around $200. Though the scan center support staff might not care too much about the money themselves, their administrators likely make the cost distinctions clear to them.

Another reason: Most scan center staff, ironically, don't understand what a heart scan means, nor do they understand how it might serve to launch a program of prevention. They do understand that severe blockage by CT angiogram "needs" to be stented or bypassed. So they push patients towards things they understand.

Nobody makes money from CT heart scans, just as nobody makes money from a mammogram. Heart scans also don't lead to heroic, "lifesaving" procedures. They just lead to this sleepy, unexciting, inexpensive thing called prevention.

The June 20-21, 2009 Wall Street Journal Weekend Journal featured a provocative front page article written by physician, Dr. Abraham Verghese:

The Myth of Prevention

While eloquently written, I took issue with a few crucial points. Here is the letter I sent to the Editor at Wall Street Journal:

Dear Wall Street Journal Editor,

Re: Dr. Abraham Verghese’s article, The Myth of Prevention in the June 20-21, 2009 Weekend Journal.

I believe a more suitable title for Dr. Verghese’s article would be: “The Myth of What Passes as Prevention.”

As a practicing cardiologist, I, too, have witnessed firsthand the systemic “corruption” described by Dr. Verghese, the doing things “to” people rather than “for” them. Heart care, in particular, is rife with this form of profit-driven health delivery.

There is a fundamental flaw in Dr. Verghese’s otherwise admirable analysis: He assumes that what is called “prevention” in mainstream medicine is truly preventive.

Dr. Verghese makes issue of the apparent minor differences between preventing a condition and just allowing a condition to run its course. Prostate cancer screening is one example: Men subjected to repeated screenings have little length-of-life advantage over men who just allow their prostate to suffer the expected course of disease.

What if, instead, “prevention” as practiced today is nothing more than a solution that has been adopted in mainstream practice to suit yet another doing “to” strategy than doing “for”? In the prostate cancer example, PSA and prostate exam screenings often serve as little more than a means of harvesting procedures for the local urologist.

That’s not prevention. It is a prototypical example of “prevention” being subverted into the cause of revenue-generating procedures.

I submit that Dr. Verghese has fallen victim to the very same system he criticizes. His views have unwittingly been corrupted by the corrupt profit-driven system he describes.

What if, instead, prevention were just that: prevention or elimination of the condition. What if “prevention” of prostate cancer eliminated prostate cancer? What if heart disease “prevention” prevented all heart disease? What if this all proceeded without regard for profit or revenue-generating procedures, but just on results?

Dr. Verghese specifically targets heart scans or coronary calcium scoring, a test he likens to “miracle glow-in-the-dark minnow lures,” calling them “moneymakers.” Yes, when subverted into a corrupt algorithm of stress test, heart catheterization, stent, or bypass, heart scans are indeed a test used wrongly to “prevent” heart disease.

But what if the risk insights provided by heart scans prompt the start of a benign yet effective “prevention” program that inexpensively, safely, and assuredly prevents--in the true sense of the word--or eliminates heart disease? Then I believe the differences in mortality, quality of life, and costs would be substantial. Such strategies exist, yet do not necessarily include prescription drugs and certainly do not include the aftermath of heart catheterization and bypass surgery. Yet such programs fail to seize the limelight of media attention with no new high-tech lifesaving headline nor a big marketing budget to broadcast its message.

The problem in medicine is not prevention and its failure to yield cost- and life-saving results. It is the pervasively profit-driven mindset that keeps true preventive strategies from entering mainstream conversation. It is a repeat of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis’ late 19th-century pleads for physicians to wash their hands before delivering babies to reduce puerperal sepsis, ignominious advice that earned him life and death in an asylum. We are essentially continuing to deliver children with unwashed hands because there is no revenue-generating procedure to clean them.

No, Dr. Verghese, the economic and medical failings of preventive strategies are not at fault. The failure of the medical system, in which everyone is bent on seizing a piece of the financial action for himself, has resulted in the failure to support the propagation of true preventive strategies that could genuinely save money and lives.

President Obama’s goal of cultivating preventive practices in medicine can work, but only if the profit-motive for “prevention” does not serve as the primary determinant of practice. Results-driven practices that are applied without regard to profit have the potential to yield the sorts of cost-saving and life-saving results that can reduce healthcare costs.

William Davis, MD
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Medical Director, The Track Your Plaque Program (www.cureality.com)
Blog: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com

The efforts of Texas House of Representatives Rep. Rene Oliveira and the SHAPE Guidelines committee have paid off: The Texas legislature passed a bill that requires health insurers to cover CT heart scans.

(NOTE: Don't make the same mistake that the media often makes and confuse CT heart scans with CT coronary angiography: two different tests, two different results, two different levels of radiation exposure. The difference is discussed here.)

Track Your Plaque previously reported the release of the SHAPE Guidelines, an ambitious effort to open CT heart scanning to people who would benefit from a simple screening test for coronary disease. Rep. Rene Oliveira initially introduced the bill in 2006, after having a heart scan uncovered extensive coronary plaque that resulted in coronary bypass surgery.

The bill requires that health-benefit providers cover the cost of CT heart scans (and carotid ultrasound) in men between the ages of 45-76, women 55-76, as well as anyone with diabetes or at "intermediate-risk" or higher for coronary disease by Framingham risk score.

The usual panel of cardiology knuckleheads stepped to the media podium, expressing their incredulity that something as "unvalidated" as heart scans could gain the backing of legislative mandate. Heartwire carried this comment:

"Contacted by heartwire, Dr Amit Khera (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas) confirmed there are still no comprehensive, adequately powered studies showing that these screening tests lead to better outcomes. In a phone interview, Khera said he has major concerns about how physicians will use these tests, particularly primary-care physicians. "I gave a talk last week to primary-care doctors, and there were probably 250 people in the room, and when I asked how many people had ordered a calcium scan, just one person raised a hand. . . . Most people don't even know what to do with the Framingham risk score, so they're going to follow an algorithm that they don't know how to follow to order a test result that they don't know what to do with."

It's the same criticisms hurled at heart scans over the years despite literally thousands of studies validating their application.

Studies have conclusively shown that:

--Coronary calcium scores generated by a CT heart scan outperform any other risk measure for coronary disease, including LDL cholesterol, c-reactive protein, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, blood pressure.
--Coronary calcium scores yield a graded, trackable index of coronary risk. Scores that increase correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular events; scores that remain unchanged correlate with much reduced risk.
--A coronary calcium score of zero--no detectable calcium--correlates with extremely low 5-year risk for cardiovascular events.
--Coronary calcium scores correlate with other measures of coronary disease. Heart scans correlate with coronary angiography, quantitative coronary angiography, carotid ultrasound (intimal-medial thickness and plaque severity), ankle-brachial index, and stress tests, including radionuclide (nuclear) perfusion imaging.

The reluctance of my colleagues to embrace heart scans stems from two issues, for the most part:

1) No study has yet been performed showing that knowing what the score is vs. not knowing what the score is changes prognosis. That's true. But it is also true of the great majority of practices in medicine. While many wrongs don't make a right, the miserable and widespread failure of other coronary risk measures, like LDL cholesterol or c-reactive protein, to readily and reliably detect hidden coronary disease creates a gaping void for improved efforts at early detection. If your LDL cholesterol is 140 mg/dl, do you or don't you have coronary disease? If your doctor's response is "Just take a statin drug anyway" you've been done a great disservice. (If and when this sort of study gets done, its huge cost--outcome studies have to be large and last many years--it will likely be a statin study. It is unlikely it will include such Track Your Plaque strategies that help reduce heart scan scores, like vitamin D and correction of small LDL particles.)

2) Fears over overuse of hospital procedures triggered by heart scans. This is a legitimate concern--if the information provided by a heart scan is misused. Heart scans should never--NEVER--lead directly to heart catheterization, stents, bypass surgery. Heart scans do not change the indications for performing revascularization (angioplasty, stents, bypass). Just because 20% of my cardiology colleagues are more concerned with profit rather than patient welfare does not invalidate the value of the test. Just because the mechanic at the local garage gouged you by replacing a carburetor for $800 when all you need was a new spark plug does not mean that we should outlaw all auto mechanics. Abuse is the fault of the abuser, not of the tool used to exercise the abuse.

All in all, while I am not a fan of legislating behavior in healthcare, the blatant and extreme ignorance of this simple tool for uncovering hidden heart disease makes the Texas action a huge success for heart disease prevention. I hope that this success will raise awareness, not just in Texas, but in other states and cities in which similar systemic neglect is the rule.

Remember: CT heart scans are tools for prevention, not to uncover "need" for procedures. They serve as a starting point to decide whether or not an intensive program of prevention is in order, and I don't mean statin vs. no statin.

Though not a multi-million dollar statin drug study, I have NEVER seen a heart attack or "need" for procedure in any person who has stopped progression or reduced their heart scan score. A small cohort from my practice was reported:

Effect of a Combined Therapeutic Approach of Intensive Lipid Management, Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation, and Increased Serum 25 (OH) Vitamin D on Coronary Calcium Scores in Asymptomatic Adults.

Davis W, Rockway S, Kwasny M.

The impact of intensive lipid management, omega-3 fatty acid, and vitamin D3 supplementation on atherosclerotic plaque was assessed through serial computed tomography coronary calcium scoring (CCS). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction with statin therapy has not been shown to reduce or slow progression of serial CCS in several recent studies, casting doubt on the usefulness of this approach for tracking atherosclerotic progression. In an open-label study, 45 male and female subjects with CCS of >/= 50 without symptoms of heart disease were treated with statin therapy, niacin, and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides /=60 mg/dL; and vitamin D3 supplementation to achieve serum levels of >/=50 ng/mL 25(OH) vitamin D, in addition to diet advice. Lipid profiles of subjects were significantly changed as follows: total cholesterol -24%, low-density lipoprotein -41%; triglycerides -42%, high-density lipoprotein +19%, and mean serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels +83%. After a mean of 18 months, 20 subjects experienced decrease in CCS with mean change of -14.5% (range 0% to -64%); 22 subjects experienced no change or slow annual rate of CCS increase of +12% (range 1%-29%). Only 3 subjects experienced annual CCS progression exceeding 29% (44%-71%). Despite wide variation in response, substantial reduction of CCS was achieved in 44% of subjects and slowed plaque growth in 49% of the subjects applying a broad treatment program.

Take a look at the results from the Heart Scan Blog's most recent reader poll (399 respondents):

How many hours do you sleep per night (on average)?

9 or more hours per night
15 (3.7%)

8-9 hours per night
72 (18%)

7-8 hours per night
152 (38.1%)

6-7 hours per night
111 (27.8%)

5-6 hours per night
38 (9.5%)

Less than 5 hours per night
11 (2.8%)

Like many issues in health, too much or too little of a good thing can present undesirable consequences.

Too much sleep: While psychologists and sleep researchers advise us that at least 9 hours are required to fully eliminate sleep "debt" and achieve optimal vigilance and mental performance, epidemiologic studies have shown increased mortality with this quantity of sleep.

Too little sleep: Getting less than 7 hours habituallly increases blood sugar, appetite, inflammatory measures, and encourages weight gain. Mortality is also increased, just as with sleeping too much. It is also associated with increased likelihood of a positive heart scan score.

7-8 hours per night from a health viewpoint is that Goldlilocks "just right" value: just enough to not erode mental performance substantially, but not so little that inflammatory, insulin-disrupting, and appetite-increasing effects develop.

Of our 399 respondents in the poll, 56.1% (38% + 18%) slept what appears to be an optimal amount for health. While only 3.7% slept too much (9 hours or more), the remaining 40.1% slept too little.

Our informal poll confirms what most of us observe in everyday life: The majority of people shortchange sleep in order to meet the demands of their high-pressure, squeeze-as-much-as-possible-into-every-day lives. But not paying off your sleep "debt" is like not paying the mortgage for a couple of months. You wouldn't expect your friendly neighborhood bank to say, "Oh, you forgot to pay your mortgage? Forget about it. Just pay next month's." Sure, fat chance. But if you don't pay off your sleep "debt," you will pay it back with health.

An extraordinary thing happened about 2 1/2 years ago.

While we have been following the Track Your Plaque program for coronary plaque regression for nearly 10 years, about 2 1/2 years ago we witnessed an extraordinary surge in success--bigger, faster, and more frequent drops in heart scan scores.

Up until then, we did witness significant reversal of coronary plaque by heart scan scores. We were planning to publish the data to validate this approach, but then . . .

Heart scan scores starting dropping not just 2%, or 8% . . . but 24%, 30%, 50% and more. Why? I attribute the surge in success to the addition of vitamin D.

Unfortunately, it also meant that the preceding 8 or so years of data lacked experience with supplementing vitamin D. The hundreds of participants in the Track Your Plaque program had not, until then, included vitamin D in their program.

So I decided to start from scratch (from the standpoint of data collection, not for the participants). That also meant that the preceding years of experience went unreported, though even that data far exceeded the results of what is achieved in conventional heart disease prevention.

Thus, the data I presented at the Experimental Biology Proceedings (FASEB 2008) in San Diego this week included only experiences in the group of participants that included vitamin D in their program, with data collected until mid-2007. The number of experiences is therefore modest.

However, the Track Your Plaque experience, as reported, far exceeds any prior experience in coronary plaque regression.

The full abstract will be published in the Track Your Plaque website.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Many people complain about the size of fish oil capsules. Let's face it: They're usually big and kind of smelly.

Women in particular struggle with big capsules. This becomes a real problem when somebody requires high-dose fish oil for treatment of post-prandial (after-eating) abnormalities, high triglycerides, or lipoprotein(a), when 6 or more--occasionally up to the equivalent of 20--standard fish oil capsules are required.

I came across a small capsule alternative for people who struggle with the big capsules. It's a product called Learn from PharmaOmega, a source of super purified fish oil.

The Learn product is actually made for children, since omega-3 fatty acid supplementation has been linked with improved intellectual performance. But the small capsule size is convenient for women and other people who would like to avoid the big standard-sized capsules.

Each capsule is about 60% of the size of a standard fish oil capsule (the smaller capsule in the photo, next to a standard size fish oil capsule), yet contains 375 mg EPA + DHA per capsule, 25% more than standard capsules (which contain 300 mg per capsule). The ratio of of EPA:DHA is a little more heavily weighted towards EPA with a 5:2 ration, compared to 3:1 of standard capsules. The capsules are also faintly orange flavored and non-fishy.

Disclosure: I receive no compensation for discussing or promoting this product.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Jenny provided permission to reprint her very excellent introduction to low-carbohydrate eating for people with diabetes. You can also view the original version on her Diabetes 101 website.

Jenny is a stickler for monitoring the effects of blood sugar. We might take some lessons from her experiences for improving management of people with metabolic syndrome or borderline blood sugars. In other words, monitoring the blood sugar-raising effects of various foods and food portions can provide great feedback on what foods are preferable, what undesirable, given your physiology.

Even if you are not a diabetic, Jenny's discussion is must reading to gain a better understanding of food choices, particularly carbohydrates. Along with seizing control of health, she has also gained deep wisdom in how to best manage this disease and its physiology.

Introduction to low-carb nutrition for diabetics

It's carbohydrates that raise blood sugar.

Sugars and starches, not the fats that dietitians have been warning you about for so long. If you've been testing your blood sugar after meals, you've probably noticed that already and you are starting to understand why a healthy diabetes diet will have to be one that limits carbohydrates to an amount that doesn't push your blood sugar up over the level where you are damaging your body.

But if your previous experience with restricting carbohydrates involved doing a weight loss diet like Atkins or Protein Power, which worked well for you until you crashed off it entirely and gained back all the weight you'd lost, you may be hesitant to embark on another course of dieting that requires some carb restriction.

I've been there myself. I've done the extremely low carb diet Dr. Richard Bernstein recommends for months on end. I did Protein Power for 3 years. And I've gone on the "Eat all the carbs you didn't eat over the past three years all at once" diet, too. The following observations grew out of my 8 years of experience with learning how to make carb restriction work long-term.

Unlike much of what you've read before, there are no scholarly references for this section. It's based entirely on my own observations and the experience of many dozens of people who have participated in online discussion groups devoted to low carb dieting and diabetes.

Weight Loss Diets Usually Fail but Diabetes Diets Can't Afford To Fail

People who adopt a low carb diet to lose weight tend to start out with great enthusiasm, adapt extreme dieting strategies, swear they will never eat another piece of bread or french fry for the rest of their lives, lose some weight, stall out, burn out, and slink back to their old diets, where they gain back all the weight they lost and more.

This is not a surprise. People on any diet, including low calorie and low fat, do the same thing. The body is very resistant to weight loss and deeply buried instincts in our brains do everything they can to maintain our weights, no matter how unhealthy they might be.

But while this pattern of dieting may be tolerable for those who are dieting to shed a few pounds before their class reunion, it spells disaster for those who must change their diet in order to prevent the high blood sugars that result in amputation, blindness, kidney failure and heart attack death.

Low carbing for diabetes means low carbing for life, long after the thrill has worn off of eating that runny brie and steak. Despite the hype in the diet books, it is not easy, simple, and fun. I know only a handful of people who have been able to sustain a low carb lifestyle for more than five years. And that is after years of online participation in low carb groups.

What you'll find below is what I've found works for me. I used a low carb diet to control my blood sugar for more than five years and have gone through the whole cycle, from enthusiasm, to boredom, to burnout, to saying "To hell with it, we've all got to die some time!" to starting all over again determined to avoid the mistakes that sent me round the bend the first time.

How Many Grams of Carbs to Eat? As Many as Allow You to Reach Your Blood Sugar Targets

When people think about adopting a lower carb diet, their first question is almost always, "How many grams of carbs can I eat at each meal?" Most of the diet books will answer that question with a hard and fast number. Atkins, for example, tells you to start out with 20 grams a day. Protein Power starts you at 30 grams. And Dr. Bernstein suggests 6 grams for breakfast and snacks and 12 grams at lunch and dinner.

Adopting these very low carbohydrate limits will control your blood sugar very nicely. But over time, many people find that sticking to a diet this low in carbohydrate becomes impossible. That's why I'm going to ask you to throw away all those diet books and try a new approach to restricting carbs.

What you will do is to try the strategy used by the people from the alt.support-diabetes newsgroup who informally call themselves "The 5% Club" because their A1c test results fall in the 5% range which doctors consider normal: use your blood sugar meter after each meal to determine how many grams of carbs you can eat and still meet a healthy blood sugar target.

You will start out by measuring your blood sugar one and two hours after each meal. Write down what you ate and observe what it did to your blood sugar. If a meal allows you to reach your blood sugar targets, try eating it again on a different day and test it test again, possibly at a later time, to make sure that your good numbers weren't just a result of slow digestion.

If you end up too high after a meal, the next time you eat it, cut back on the portion size of the carbohydrate elements in the meal and test again. Do this until you can hit your targets, or flag the carbohydrate-containing foods in that meal as ones your body can't handle.

What you're doing here is creating what newsgroup activist Alan S. calls, "a low spike diet" rather than a low carb diet. He can achieve normal post meal blood sugars by eating as many as 30 or 40 grams of carbohydrates at a meal. Others will find that they need to eat a lot less than that amount to hit safe post-meal blood sugar targets.

Usually how much carbohydrate you can manage has something to do with your body size. The more you weigh, the less each gram of carbohydrate you eat will raise your blood sugar. Those of us whose weight is less than 150 lbs often find that we can eat between 12 and 20 grams of carbohydrate and still reach normal blood sugar targets without the help of medications, and that we can add perhaps another 10 or 20 grams more, with medications. People who are much heavier can often eat 30 or 40 grams per meal and still reach their blood sugar targets. In general, men can eat more carbohydrates and still reach their targets than can women, again, because of their larger body size.

How to Learn How Much Carbohydrate is in Your Food

To make this system work, it helps if you start to learn how many grams of carbohydrate are in the foods you eat. That way you won't have to test hundreds of foods once you've learned how a representative sample affect you.

The best way to learn how many grams of carbohydrates are in the different foods you eat is to read food labels carefully, invest in a nutritional guide like one of Connie Netzer's books of nutritional information, download nutrition software like LifeForm (http://www.lifeform.com) or use online calculators like Fit Day (http://www.fitday.com). Software and online sites will compute the amount of carbohydrates and other nutrients in your meal for you as long as you know the portion size.

Learn about Portion Sizes!
This brings up an important point: When you estimate how many grams of carbohydrate there are in a portion of food, it is very important to find out if the amount of food on your plate corresponds to the amount in the "one serving" listed on a label, in a book, or in your software.

The best way to do this is to invest in an electronic food scale and to weigh your foods for a few weeks until you get the hang of estimating portion size. You can get a good food scale at a gourmet kitchen shop for $25 to $40 dollars. This food scale may be the best nutritional investment you'll ever make.

Once you start using your scale, you will find that the muffin you bought at the coffee shop weighs 8 ounces, which is fully four times the 2 ounces that most food databases give as "one serving" of a muffin. When you read that a mythical 2 ounce portion of muffin contains 27 grams of carbohydrate you will realize why that 8 ounce coffee shop muffin with its 108 grams of carbohydrates sends your blood sugar into the psycho zone!

With ice cream, when you weigh your ice cream on a food scale, you'll quickly see that the "one portion" listed on the package turns out to be only a few teaspoons' worth. That bowl you've been considering as one portion of ice cream weighs in as four servings or 72 grams of carbohydrate and 600 calories, which may explain its damaging effect on both your blood sugar and your waistline.

This may sound like a lot of work, and when you first start, it is. But after you do it for a few weeks you'll find you have memorized the carbohydrate gram counts and the portion sizes for the foods you usually eat, and once you have tested your blood after eating these portion sizes, you won't have to test every time you eat a favorite meal, because you will know what it is going to do to your blood sugar.

Eating Away from Home

The biggest challenge you'll encounter as you start learning what you can eat will be eating away from home. You aren't going to be able to weigh restaurant foods nor can you look up the nutritional values of many restaurant offerings--though many of the common fast food outlets do provide nutritional information online--though often without listing portion sizes.

That makes it a very good idea to avoid starchy or sugary restaurant foods or, if you do eat them, to eat only a small portion of what you are offered. Measure your blood sugar an hour or two hours after eating if you aren't sure about how a restaurant food will affect you.

Fat and Carbs Eaten Together will Digest Slowly

Foods with a lot of fat in them take longer to digest than those without a lot of fat. This is why pizza and ice cream often give deceptively good readings on your meter. If you test a meal and see a reading that is too good to be true, be sure you test at 3 or four hours after eating.

The Truth About Pasta

Pasta was long recommended to people with diabetes as a food that would not raise blood sugar and you will still see it starring in many cookbooks and magazines intended for people with diabetes.

However, if you test pasta 4 or 5 hours after eating, you may get an unpleasant surprise. This is true with the so-called "low carb" pastas, too. These foods give you excellent readings at one and two hours because they are resistant to digestion so they don't turn into glucose right away. But five hours later, they do break down into glucose and when they do, the 52 grams of carbohydrates found in each 2 ounce serving of pasta will hit your blood stream with a nasty wallop. (Not to mention that you almost need a microscope to see a 2 ounce portion of pasta. Most people's idea of a portion of pasta is closer to 6 ounces--and 156 grams of carbohydrate!)

If you have pasta for dinner and don't see a peak 3 hours later, be sure to check your fasting blood sugar the next morning. You may see the blood sugar rise there, too.

Sugar Alcohol and "Sugar Free" Foods

The sugar alcohol used in so-called "sugar free" foods can also show up in your blood sugar an hour or two after you'd expect to see them, especially the maltitol used in "sugar-free" candy. At least half of the sugar in Maltitol does turn into glucose in your blood stream and it can raise your blood sugar, but the rise is delayed so you may miss it on testing. So if a "sugar free" food seems to be kind to your blood sugar, try testing it an hour or two after your first tests. Erythritol is the one sugar alcohol that usually does not show up in your blood sugar.

Dealing with Limited Blood Testing Supplies

In in ideal world, we'd all have all the testing supplies we needed to control our blood sugar, but in real life blood sugar test strips are very expensive and many insurers sharply limit the number of strips people with Type 2 diabetes can get each month.

Here are some strategies that can help you if your access to strips is limited.

If you only have 50 strips to get you through a month, plan out what you are going to test ahead of time. Pick one of your favorite meals, and test at 1 hour after eating the first time you eat it and 2 hours after eating the second. Do this with a couple different meals and see if there's a pattern as to when you see the highest reading--whether it is at one hour or two. Then choose another meal and test it at the time when you saw the highest reading in the earlier meal. If you ever get a surprisingly low reading, try testing an hour later or earlier, to make sure you aren't missing the peak.

Make the goal of your testing be learning how many grams of carbs you can tolerate in one meal. If you learn that 30 grams is your upper limit, use software and your scale to find portions of other foods that will also clock in at 30 grams or less. Test one or two of these, and if you see the result you expect, you don't have to test every time you eat these foods again.

Wal-mart sells a cheap and effective blood sugar meter with strips that cost one half as much as other vendors. Some drug stores also sell store brand meters with cheaper strips. If you need more strips, consider the $50 you pay for another 100 strips an investment in your health. It's far better to spend that $50 now, than to spend it on expensive doctor bills caused by complications you don't need to develop!

Keep the focus on Achieving your Blood Sugar Goals

By testing after meals, you'll learn how many grams of carbohydrate your own, unique, body can handle. And more importantly, you'll also be able to decide if you are going to be able to control through diet alone, of whether it is time to talk to your doctor about supplementing dietary control with drugs.

Many people are so excited to learn that they can achieve normal blood sugars by cutting way back on carbohydrates that they become zealots for low carb dieting. I've been there and I've done that. But it's important not to get too carried away with a "Carbs are Evil" mentality which makes it a matter of religious zeal never to let evil carbs cross your lips again. Like all conversions this one tends to fade out in time. And as we said at the start of this chapter, your ultimate goal is to maintain your blood sugar targets for the rest of your life. So the safest approach is to get the most blood sugar benefit you can out of restricting carbohydrates, but restrict them to a level you can maintain year in and year out.

Most importantly, I have learned it is best to treat carb restriction as a strategy, one of many, which used in combination with other strategies including medications if needed, can give you normal blood sugars, rather than the One and Only True Way. If you can be flexible and find more than one tool to help you meet your blood sugar targets, you are more likely to be able to maintain those excellent blood sugars for years to come.

Eliminate "Habit Carbs" and Concentrate on "Value Carbs"
When people think about restricting their carb intake they assume this means never eating any of their favorite foods again.

But for many of us, this doesn't have to be true. Why? Because a quick look at your daily carb intake will often reveal that the bulk of the carbohydrates you are eating are what I call "habit carbs." These are the carbs you eat without a second thought because they are there. Not because they taste good. Not because you couldn't live without them. Just because you're in the habit of eating them.

Here is a list of some prime "habit carbs."

Steam table mashed potatoes

Limp french fries

Squashy hamburger buns

Cardboard toast

Cold home fries

Stale boxed cookies

How many of these flavorless, starchy foods are you consuming everyday just because they're there? Probably more than you realize. So before you lift that fork-full to your mouth, ask yourself, "Is this food thrilling me?" If not, put it down. This should go a long way towards getting your carb intake down.

What I'd call "value carbs" are those carb-rich foods that really do mean something to you. I'm not going to lie to you. You are not going to be able to make them the mainstays of your diabetes diet. But by using the strategies describe below, you should be able to eat enough of these foods to keep yourself from feeling deprived--without destroying your health.

Don't Create "Forbidden Foods!"

If you are one of those people who could live happily on Purina People Chow, you can skip what follows. But if food has been important to you, and if you have hitherto had a long and emotionally satisfying relationship with food, or if, like me, baking from scratch was one of your favorite ways to show love and express creativity, restricting your carbohydrate input will mean that a whole lot of what you've been eating (and baking) up until now is suddenly, completely, off limits. I can't eat cake and get a healthy blood sugar level. Even with two different diabetes drugs in my system. I can't eat cake even with an insulin shot before I eat it. I love cake but there is no way I can eat more than a bite or two without seeing very high blood sugars and there is no way I can eat two bites of cake and be happy. The same goes for french fries and Thai noodles.

During the first enthusiastic weeks of exploring carb restriction most people deal with this kind of discovery by coming up with new recipes and finding new, delicious and healthy things they can substitute for old, high carb standards. They appreciate the way cutting way back on carbohydrates curbs their hunger and makes food much more manageable. This is good and it is why long term low carbing is possible. But our old favorite foods do not go away that easily.

If you decide that some food you have been eating and enjoying all your life will never again cross your lips, it is almost 100% guaranteed that you'll end up pigging out on that very same food at some time in the future, hating yourself, and even beginning a binge that can throw you completely off your diet for months.

It might not happen the first month you are restricting your carb intake or even the first year. It took me three years of low carbing to get to where I crashed off my stringent low carb diet. But eventually it happens, and because after almost a decade of counting my carbs I've learned that I will never lose my love for certain foods that don't love me, I've put a lot of time into finding a way of restricting my carbohydrate intake in a way that avoids the buildup those feelings of deprivation that eventually lead to long periods of unwise eating.

The key, for me, is to build safety valves into my diet. I don't call them "cheats" or "bad foods" for reasons I'll get into later. I call them "off plan" foods because they are not food I can make an ongoing part of my daily food plan. Because my goal is life-long blood sugar control, I accept that I will occasional eat "off plan" and that this is okay as long as I am meeting my blood sugar targets most of the time. "Good enough" control that I can adhere to year in and year out beats a few months of perfection followed by crashing off the diet entirely and ruining my health. Here is one way to approach doing this:

Do the Diet Straight for a Month or Two Before You Try Off-Plan Goodies

As you learn what foods raise your blood sugar and what foods don't, you will almost certainly find that there are a lot of foods you used to love that don't work for you anymore. Waffles for breakfast, coffee cake at coffee break, three slices of pizza with crust, a burger with a bun and a side of fries are just a few of the foods that it is almost certain will not allow you to meet your post-meal blood sugar targets.

As you keep using your meter to test what you eat, if you are like most people with diabetes you'll also learn that some of the so-called "low glycemic" foods and the supposedly "healthy" whole grains that nutritionists recommend for people with diabetes won't work either. Oatmeal and whole wheat bagels raise my blood sugar far too high, so does cracked whole wheat, whole wheat bread, and brown rice.

If the dietician tells you a food is good for you, but your meter tells you it is raising your blood sugar to a level that is high enough to cause complications, you will have to listen to your meter. Your meter will tell you what is safe to eat and for the first couple of months while you are learning how to get your blood sugar under control and how bring those high blood sugars down to normal levels you will have to accept that you can only eat those foods that don't cause spikes.

If you attempt to add in off-plan foods before you are solidly on-plan you may never really get into the swing of eating a diet that controls your blood sugars and you may not get to where your body learns to enjoy the lower carb foods that don't give you blood sugar swings.

But after you've gotten your blood sugar under control, nothing horrible will happen if you make room for a small portion of some high carb treat every now and then.

How to Add Off-Plan Foods to the Plan

If you've avoided bread for a couple months, the humble roll in that restaurant bread basket may start to call out to you with an irresistible siren song. If you give in and eat it, with each bite you may find yourself feeling as if you are doing something incredibly sinful--the way you might have felt if you had eaten a whole box of chocolates in the past.

That feeling is the sign that you're heading for trouble. You've created a "forbidden fruit" and sooner or later that forbidden fruit is going to get you. You may find yourself thinking about that roll, craving another, sneaking off to eat one where nobody knows you, or, alternatively, you may declare that you will never again eat a roll ever--and then ruin your Thanksgiving holiday when you go to Aunt Glenda's and refuse to eat even a single one of those wonderful rolls of hers you've eaten every year of your life which say, "This is the family Thanksgiving" to you.

It is far better to make a bit of room in your diet for high carb treats so that they don't build up a charge. If you do this, you'll find that they almost never taste as good as you remembered, and you'll be able to leave them behind without turning them into an object of obsession.

Just knowing that you can eat some specific off-plan food at some future time, when it is scheduled, makes it that much easier to say, "No thanks" to it, and maintain your healthy blood sugar the rest of the time.

How Often Can You Eat Off-Plan?
How often you have an off-plan food depends a lot on your dietary goals, how high your blood sugar is before you eat carbs, and whether you are willing to exercise after eating. It also depends greatly on what medications you are taking for your diabetes. Whatever I eat, I try to keep my blood sugar below 120 mg/dl (6.7 mmol/l) at 2 hours after any meal.

Forty minutes of cardiovascular exercise will burn off a lot of extra carbs, so if you exercise regularly, try to eat your high carb treat before you head for the gym.

If you're trying to lose weight, you may have to keep off plan treats few and far between. When I was actively losing weight on a low carb diet without medications I ate one off-plan meal about once every two weeks.

Once I reached my weight loss goal I loosened up a bit but I found it best to cycle between weeks of eating a strict very low carb diet, and then a week of eating slightly more carbs--but I tried very hard not to ever anything that would cause my blood sugar to be over 120 mg/dl (6.7 mmol/L) at 2 hours after a meal because doing so makes me feel rotten.

Throw Away the Vocabulary of Self-Destructive Dieting

When you eat something with carbs in it, don't think of it as a "cheat." Cheating is what you do when faced with an authority figure--your 9th grade math teacher or the IRS. But you are the one in control of what you eat. So when you eat something that is off-plan, you should stop thinking of it as "getting away with something" and treat it instead as something you've decided to do--for a reason that should be clear to you while you do it.

If you keep eating things that were not what you had intended, rather than beating yourself up, it's time to reconsider your food plan and figure out why it isn't working. Are you having trouble finding foods in restaurants that don't raise your blood sugar? Maybe it's time to bring your lunch along to work for a while, or to find new place to dine.

Are you bored with what you have been eating? Google for good low carb recipes you can try at home. There are thousands of them. If you use the Google Groups search and look for messages in alt.support.diet.low-carb that start with "REC" you'll find a treasure trove of ideas to try.

Keep the vocabulary of sin and guilt for the confessional. You're going to eat a lot of things in the years to come that will mess up your blood sugar. But if you are kind to yourself and dust yourself off after you mess up and keep on going, doing the best you can to hit your blood sugar targets, you may very well end up healthier than many people who do not have diabetes. The important thing is to keep at it, doing the best you can and forgiving yourself when the best you can do isn't as good as you wish it was.

Know Your Limits
I've learned the hard way I can't eat half a blueberry muffin, so I don't even try portion control for that particular food. I know blueberry muffins are trouble and I also know that I will eventually eat one. That's just how it is, so every blue moon or so I eat a blueberry muffin, experience the miserable high blood sugars that follow, and then remember why I don't eat muffins every day any more. What I don't do is fool myself that I can buy a muffin and only eat half. Everyone has a few foods that fall into this category. Treat them with caution!

Eat Off-Plan Foods Out of the House
I've learned the hard way that if a big box of something full of carbs is in the fridge, bad things are going to happen. So I try to eat my off-plan foods away from home. I eat my muffins or cookies at a coffee house. I have a slice of pizza at a pizzeria. I don't buy a box of muffins or a whole pizza and bring them home.

Getting this strategy to work requires that your whole family understand what's at stake. It took me a couple years of harping on what "complications" means, but by now, my family understands that if my blood sugar is too high, I'm damaging my body. They want to keep me around for a while, so they understand that there are some foods that shouldn't be brought into the house--ever.

When other family members want to have treats at home, they are kind enough to buy things I don't like. For example, if someone wants Ben & Jerry's they buy the Chunky Monkey flavor that I find revolting, not the New York Fudge. By the same token, when my kids lived at home, I didn't buy them the brands of cookies I can't resist. There are plenty of others cookies they liked that don't tempt me at all, and those were the ones in the cupboard.

Over the years the nondiabetic members of my family learned that no one is doing themselves a favor scarfing down 300 grams of fast acting carbohydrate every day--particularly not people with a family history of diabetes and heart disease!

Medications Can Help

I'm not a big fan of medications because I've learned the hard way that drug companies lie about side effects and some of these side effects are permanent and can ruin your life. But I learned the hard way, too, that some of us (like, say me) can't get normal blood sugars no matter how low our carb intake. For us, adding a diabetic drug or two to our daily regimen may be the only way we can get normal blood sugars without a life of tormenting self-denial.

Drugs I have found useful over the years include metformin, precose, and post-meal insulin shots. The new incretin drugs, Januvia and Byetta help some people make dramatic improvements in their blood sugar, but the way that they work makes it necessary to eat a slightly higher amount of carbohydrates with them because they only work when your blood sugar rises over a certain threshold. Even with these drugs (including Januvia) I've never been able to eat more than 120 grams of carbohydrates a day, but after many years of eating an extremely low carb diet--which was the only diet that would control my blood sugars--120 grams of carbs a day feels like a completely normal diet!

Be Aware of Rising Insulin Resistance

Some people may find that eating a low carb diet is not enough to control their blood sugar because they are very insulin resistant. Perhaps they have been diagnosed with PCOS, or have to take a drug, like Prednisone that increases insulin resistance. The book, Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution by Dr. Richard K. Bernstein, the distinguished diabetes doctor, recommends Metformin as an appropriate drug for patients on a low carb diet whose blood sugars are still not completely controlled. It isn't a cure by any means, just one more tool you can use to keep blood sugars under control, and if you limit your insulin resistance you may solve both weight and hunger problems that otherwise can derail your diet.

You can read more about the different drugs available to help control blood sugars HERE. Just remember that all these diabetes drugs work best when you combine them with some level of carbohydrate restriction. How much restriction? Test your meals one and two hours after eating, and your blood sugar meter will tell you exactly how much.

Top Medical Journal Publishes Landmark Study Showing Very Low Carb Diet Most Effective and Safest for Lipids etc.

In case you are still being given out-of-date medical or nutritional advice by people who tell you that a low carb/high fat diet will give you a heart attack, take a look at this recently published study, which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

This study found that an Atkins style low carb diet not only caused double the weight loss of the low fat diet at the end of one year, but it did not adversely affect cholesterol levels.

This finding, added to the Women's Health Initiative finding (after $40 million dollars of research) that low fat dieting does NOT prevent heart disease, should lay to rest any last fears you might have about the impact of cutting carbs on your health.

The findings of this study, are not news to anyone who has tried a low carb diet and stuck with it for any period of time, but they appear to amaze the entire medical community who continue to cling to their to the "Fat is Bad" religious belief long no matter what evidenced-based medical studies might come up with.

Bottom line: You can cut your carbs way down, replace carbs with fat, and await the better health this kind of eating will provide.

Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN Diets for Change in Weight and Related Risk Factors Among Overweight Premenopausal Women: The A TO Z Weight Loss Study: A Randomized Trial.Christopher D. Gardner, PhD; Alexandre Kiazand, MD; Sofiya Alhassan, PhD; Soowon Kim, PhD; Randall S. Stafford, MD, PhD; Raymond R. Balise, PhD; Helena C. Kraemer, PhD; Abby C. King, PhD

Here's the summary of the WHI findings:

NIH News: News from the Women?s Health Initiative: Reducing Total Fat Intake May Have Small Effect on Risk of Breast Cancer, No Effect on Risk of Colorectal Cancer, Heart Disease, or Stroke

Here's a study that documents the effectiveness of lowering carbs and increasing fat and protein consumption for the control of blood sugar in the absense of weight loss:

Control of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes without weight loss by modification of diet composition. Nutrition & Metabolism 2006, 3:16.

To Get More Help with Making a Low Carbohydrate Diet Work

My "Low Carb Facts and Figures" site, which now shares this server, has more information I collected back in the days when I used a low carb diet for both weight loss and blood sugar control.

You'll find articles there that address a few of the issues people run into while eating a very low carb diet,which are not answered in a completely honest fashion by the people who sell diet books promising you can lose weight easily while gorging on all your favorite foods--which, sadly, is 99% of all authors writing diet books.

I stumbled onto Jenny Ruhl's Diabetes Update blog after I received several very insightful comments to this blog whenever I posted a discussion on diabetes or pre-diabetes/metabolic syndrome.

Who the heck was this commenter who clearly had deep insight into diabetic issues?

It turned out to be Jenny Ruhl, a woman who learned her lessons the hard way: by receiving a belated diagnosis of (an unusual form of) diabetes, then receiving plenty of mis-guided advice from physicians on diet and treatment. Reading her many blog posts and websites, you get the clear sense of how hard this individual worked to gain the depth of knowledge she's acquired, on a par or superior to most diabetes specialists.

And she minces no words in expressing her heartfelt and carefully considered opinions. But that's what I look for: people who are unafraid to voice opinions that may not be consistent with the flow of conventional thought, but ring true and prove effective.

Dr. Davis: From your blog and websites on diabetes, it is clear that you exceptionally knowledgeable in the world of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and related disorders. Can you give us a little background on how you came to this quest?

Jenny: Though I was told I was a "classic type 2" [diabetic] by my doctors, nothing I read about diabetes corresponded to my own experience. I knew my diabetes had not been caused by obesity because I'd been a normal weight all my life until my blood sugars went out of control at which point I developed ravenous hunger and gained a lot of weight very quickly.

I also wondered at the huge gap between what Dr. Bernstein said was a normal blood sugar and what my doctors told me was a safe blood sugar for a person with diabetes. The people I met who followed Bernstein's very low carb diet had much better blood sugars and far fewer complications, but my doctors dismissed this as irrelevant. So I decided to do some research to find out who to believe. I plunged into the medical journal articles that had recently been made available on the web to see if I could answer two questions: What causes diabetes? and "What does science actually know about what blood sugar levels damage organs?"

The result was the information that became the basis for the Blood Sugar 101 site. Initially, I attempted to sell it as a book, but editors told me that though what I'd learned was "fascinating" it would be "over the head" of the typical health book buyer who wanted simple explanations and if possible, a simplistic slant towards "cure." Fortunately, the very strong response and high traffic volume to the web site proved that, as I had thought, there are a lot of people who do want more than an oversimplified overview and who, given the information they needed, were able to make huge positive changes in their health.

Dr. Davis: What do you think your life would be like if you hadn't pursued this unique course?

Jenny: Possibly a lot shorter.

People in my family die of heart attacks in their 50s, probably from undiagnosed high blood sugars. The pattern of the type of diabetes I have is to have a normal fasting blood sugar and an extremely high post-meal blood sugar after consuming very few grams of carbohydrate. When doctors diagnose using only the fasting blood test, they miss those highs, which research is now finding to be a primary cause of heart disease.

I also would have been a lot fatter. My doctors told me that I was packing on 20 lbs a year due to "normal menopausal changes" and that there was nothing I could do about it. Lowering my carbs significantly dropped all the weight I had gained and I still weigh a lot less now than I did in 1998.

Dr. Davis: You've been a keen observer of the diabetes scene for some years. Have you discerned any important trends in both the public's perception of diabetes as well as how diabetes is managed in the conventional world?

Jenny: The huge difference I see is that, over the last decade, the online diabetes community has learned the value of cutting back on carbohydrates and shooting for truly normal blood sugar levels. So people who put some time into researching diabetes online and talking with those of us who have succeeded in avoiding complications will learn that they do not have to settle for very high blood sugars and deterioration their doctors think inevitable.

Unfortunately, the media have put most of their energy into promoting the discredited idea that diabetes is caused by gluttony and sloth and to promoting the equally discredited idea that people with diabetes should eat a high carbohydrate diet and avoid fat.

So for now there is a huge divide in the quality of life of those people with diabetes who educated enough to go out on the web and educate themselves and those who get their diabetes information from doctors. Sadly most doctors still encourage patients to eat low fat/ high carb diets, and counter the very high blood sugars this diet produces with oral drugs of questionable efficacy, while assuring patients they will be safe if they maintain blood sugar levels that meet the American Diabetes Association's recommendations, though a mass of research shows these are high enough to produce every single diabetic complication possible.

Dr. Davis: I understand that you've released a new book, Blood Sugar 101. How is your book unique in the world of diabetes books? Who should read Blood Sugar 101?

Jenny: Blood Sugar 101: What They Don't Tell You About Diabetes differs from other books in that it gives the reader a much deeper understanding of what is really going on in their bodies as their blood sugar control breaks down and what sciences knows about how abnormal blood sugars cause complications. Then it gives the reader the tools they need to find what diet and/or drug regimen will brings their own, unique, blood sugars down to a truly safe level.

Unlike some books, this one does not present a one-size-fits-all solution, but recognizes that Type 2 diabetes is really a catch-all diagnosis that covers a lot of disorders that behave quite differently. That is why what works for one person with diabetes may not work for another.

Because this book provides details available nowhere else about the physiology of diabetes and the drugs available to treat it, readers will find the information they need to work with their doctors to craft a regimen that brings their blood sugar into the range that preserves and improves their health.

Dr. Davis: Before we close, tell us a little about yourself outside of your diabetes advocate role.

Jenny: I live in rural New England and am a passionate gardener. I've been online since 1980 when I was part of the team at IBM that developed the first commercial email program, PROFS. I got involved in online discussion groups in 1987 and have been messaging on bulletin boards ever since.

I was a professional singer/songwriter in Nashville in my youth and spent my middle years as a bestselling author of books about consulting. Right now a lot of my energy goes into managing the financial and software side of a family business that makes hand made pocket tools for collectors.

Dr. Davis: Thank you for your great insights, Jenny!

True to form, Dr. John Cannell has published yet another wonderfully insightful Vitamin D Newsletter.

One item caught my eye, a response to a question about the Marshall Protocol. I, like Dr. Cannell, was inundated with questions about this so-called protocol, which amounts to little more than the unfounded speculations of a non-physician, actually someone not even involved in health care.

In all honesty, I blew the whole issue off after I read Dr. Marshall's rants. They smack of pure quackery, though from somebody who clearly has a command of scientific lingo. To Dr. Cannell's credit, he took the time and effort to construct a rational response in the latest issue of the newsletter. I reproduce his response here:

Dear Dr. Cannell:

I understand Dr. Marshall conducted a study and found vitamin D is bad for you. What kind of study did he do?

Mary, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Dear Mary:

I have been inundated with letters asking about Professor Marshall's recent "discovery." Some have written that to say they have stopped their vitamin D and are going to avoid the sun in order to begin the "Marshall protocol." The immediate cause of this angst is two publications, a press article in Science Daily about Professor Marshall's "study" (which is no study but simply an opinion) in BioEssays. Dr. Trevor Marshall has two degrees, both in electrical engineering. Before I begin, I want to again remind you that I am a psychiatrist who works at a state mental hospital. In my duty to full disclosure, I must say that I have known a lot of psychiatrists in my life and a few electrical engineers. If I knew nothing else of a disagreement between two people but their professions, I would believe the electrical engineer, not the psychiatrist.

In reading his two articles, Dr. Marshall's main hypotheses are simple. (1) Vitamin D from sunlight is different than vitamin D from supplements. (2) Vitamin D is immunosuppressive and the low blood levels of vitamin D found in many chronic diseases are the result of the disease and not the cause. (3) Taking vitamin D will harm you, that is, vitamin D will make many diseases worse, not better. If you read his blog, you discover that the essence of the Marshall protocol is: "An angiotensin II receptor blocker medication, Benicar, is taken, and sunlight, bright lights and foods and supplements with vitamin D are diligently avoided. This enables the body's immune system, with the help of small doses of antibiotics, to destroy the intracellular bacteria. It can take approximately one to three years to destroy all the bacteria." That is, Dr. Marshall has his "patients" become very vitamin D deficient.

Again, Dr. Marshall conducted no experiment and published no study. He wrote an essay. He presented no evidence for his first hypothesis (sunlight's vitamin D is different than supplements). From all that we know, cholecalciferol is cholecalciferol, regardless if it is made in the skin or put in the mouth. His second hypothesis is certainly possible and that is why all scientists who do association studies warn readers that they don't know what is causing what. Certainly, when low levels of vitamin D are found in certain disease states, it is possible that the low levels are the result, and not the cause, of the disease. Take patients with severe dementia bedridden in a nursing home. At least some of their low 25(OH)D levels are likely the result of confinement and lack of outdoor activity. However, did dementia cause the low vitamin D levels or did low 25 (OH)D contribute to the dementia? One way to look at that question is to look at early dementia, before the patient is placed in a nursing home. On the first day an older patient walks into a neurology clinic, before being confined to a nursing home, what is the relationship between vitamin D levels and dementia? The answer is clear, the lower your 25(OH)D levels the worse your cognition.

Wilkins CH, Sheline YI, Roe CM, Birge SJ, Morris JC. Vitamin D deficiency is associated with low mood and worse cognitive performance in older adults. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006 Dec;14(12):1032-40.

Przybelski RJ, Binkley NC. Is vitamin D important for preserving cognition? A positive correlation of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration with cognitive function. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2007 Apr 15;460(2):202-5. Epub 2007 Jan 8.

These studies suggest that the low 25(OH)D levels are contributing to the dementia but do not prove it. Only a randomized controlled trial will definitively answer the question, a trial that has not been done. So you will have to decide if vitamin D is good for your brain or not. Dr. Marshall seems to be saying demented patients should lower their 25(OH)D levels. Keep in mind, an entire chapter in Feldman's textbook is devoted to the ill effects low vitamin D levels have on brain function.

Brachet P, et al. Vitamin D, a neuroactive hormone: from brain development to pathological disorders. In Feldman D., Pike JW, Glorieux FH, eds. Vitamin D. San Diego : Elsevier, 2005.

It is true that in some diseases, high doses of vitamin D may be harmful. For example, in the early part of last century, the AMA specifically excluded pulmonary TB from the list of TB infections that ultraviolet light helps. They did so because many of the early pioneers of solariums reported that acutely high doses of sunlight caused some patients with severe pulmonary TB to bleed to death. Thus, these pioneers developed very conservative sun exposure regimes for pulmonary TB patients in which small areas of the skin were progressively exposed to longer and longer periods of sunlight. Using this method, sunlight helped pulmonary TB, often to the point of a cure. Furthermore, it is well known that sunlight can cause high blood calcium in patients with sarcoidosis. In fact, sarcoidosis is one of several granulomatous diseases with vitamin D hypersensitivity where the body loses its ability to regulate activated vitamin D production, causing hypercalcemia.

Cronin CC, et al. Precipitation of hypercalcaemia in sarcoidosis by foreign sun holidays: report of four cases. Postgrad Med J. 1990 Apr;66(774):307-9.

Furthermore, although medical science is not yet convinced, some common autoimmune diseases may have an infectious etiology. I recently spoke at length with a rheumatologist who suffers from swollen and painful joints whenever he sunbathes or takes high doses of vitamin D. As long as he limits his vitamin D input his joints are better. To the extent vitamin D upregulates naturally occurring antibiotics of innate immunity, sunlight or vitamin D supplements may cause the battlefield (the joints) to become hot spots. I know of no evidence this is the case but it is certainly possible.

However, If Dr. Marshall's principal hypothesis is correct, that low vitamin D levels are the result of disease, then he is saying that cancer causes low vitamin D levels, not the other way around. The problem is that Professor Joanne Lappe directly disproved that theory in a randomized controlled trial when she found that baseline vitamin D levels were strong and independent predictors of who would get cancer in the future. The lower your levels, the higher the risk. Furthermore, increasing baseline levels from 31 to 38 ng/ml reduced incident cancers by more than 60% over a four year period. Therefore, advising patients to become vitamin D deficient, as the Marshall protocol clearly does, will cause some patients to die from cancer.

Lappe JM, Travers-Gustafson D, Davies KM, Recker RR, Heaney RP. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91.

I will not write again about Dr. Marshall's theories. No one in the vitamin D field takes him seriously. Personally, I admire anyone willing to swim against the tide and raise alternative theories. I have done the same with influenza and autism. However, I agree with the New York Times, An Oldie Vies for Nutrient of the Decade and Jane Brody's conclusion, "In the end, you will have to decide for yourself how much of this vital nutrient to consume each and every day and how to obtain it." I agree. You will have to decide for yourself.

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council

The American Heart Association (AHA) was kind enough to send me an e-mail headlining the breaking news from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) meetings underway in Chicago:

ISAR-REACT 3
A Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled, Multi-Center Trial (ISAR-REACT 3) of Bivalirudin Versus Unfractionated Heparin in Troponin-Negative Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions After Pre-Treatment With 600 mg of Clopidogrel

TRITON - TIMI 38 Stent Analysis
Prasugrel Compared to Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing PCI With Stenting: The TRITON - TIMI 38 Stent Analysis

Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Facilities without On-Site Cardiac Surgery (NCDR)

(And four other similar reports)

Let's meld the ACC headlines with the financial headlines:

July 2, 2007
The Medicines Company announces reacquisition of all marketing rights to bivalirudin, anticoagulant growing in use for coronary angioplasty and related procedures. 2008 sales anticipated to be in the $15-20 million range, to grow to $90-110 million, a growth rate of 50% per year.

November 20, 2007
Drug manufacturing giant, Eli Lilly, vies for a portion of the $5 billion (annual revenues) oral anti-platelet market, now occupied by Plavix, with its newer, but questionably better, agent, prasugrel.

Growth of the coronary angioplasty (percutaneous coronary intervention, or PCI) doesn't ordinarily make headlines, but the performance of specific companies within the industry does. Angioplasty and cardiac device maker (inc. the drug-coated stent, Taxus), Boston Scientific, for instance, announced record sales of $8.537 billion for 2007, an increase of $536 million. How to grow this market? We could always hope for more people with heart attacks or other unstable symptoms. Or, we could . . . increase the number of hospitals capable of PCI! Brilliant.

The money behind this push for procedures is staggering. It drives enormous marketing efforts, pays Washington lobbyists, pays for many nice dinners and trips for doctors who engage in the system, and pays for very costly research.

And the AHA and ACC are kind enough to let us know about these great pieces of news.

Have you ever wondered to what degree health care is driven by a profit motive?

A doctor advises you to undergo a procedure. Is that advice motivated solely by concern for your health and welfare? Or, does the generous financial compensation peculiar to procedures bias your doctor’s decision?

The billboard on the highway advertises a hospital heart program. Is it meant to raise awareness of lifesaving services? Or, is it the same as an ad for a casino or hotel chain, a marketing tool for generating business?

At one time or another, we’ve probably all shared a suspicion that healthcare is occasionally motivated by money: over-priced prescription drugs, hospitals charging higher prices to the uninsured, the three-minute doctor’s visit for $200.

Direct-to-consumer drug advertising has brought aggressive drug sales tactics front and center to the public’s attention. “Ask your doctor about . . .” is the mantra of countless 30-second spots appearing several times an hour on national television. Direct-to-consumer drug advertising has provided the American public with a $4.5 billion reminder that there’s money to be made in the world of prescription drugs (U.S. Government Accountability Office). And there’s certainly a load of money to be made. A 2003 Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology study showed that, of every dollar spent on consumer drug advertising, $4.20 was recovered through increased sales (Impact of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising on Prescription Drug Spending; Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation). A $53,000 ad run three times during the Oprah Winfrey Show is money well invested for a drug manufacturer.

T Cureality | Real People Seeking Real Cures

Who lost weight?

1. August 2009 William Davis (30)

The results of the latest Heart Scan Blog poll are in.

I went wheat-free and I . . .

Gained weight 6 (3%)

Lost no weight 41 (21%)

Lost less than 10 lbs 28 (14%)

Lost more than 10 lbs 34 (17%)

Lost more than 20 lbs 22 (11%)

Lost more than 30 lbs 28 (14%)

I'm still losing weight! 30 (15%)

(189 respondents)

This means that, by eliminating wheat:

24% had no success

31% had moderate success (less than 10 lbs or more than 10 lbs)

25% had extravagant results with 20 lbs or more lost

It would be interesting to know where along the weight-loss spectrum the last category, "I'm still losing weight," group falls. (Anyone with a good story please speak up!)

I believe we can conclude from this casual exercise that, as a simple strategy, wheat elimination is surprisingly effective.

Why would 3% gain weight? Well, without knowing the details, there are several possible explanations:

1) Weight gain developed through other foods. For instance, I've had people eliminate wheat only to replace it with fattening gluten-free alternatives. Remember: wheat-free is not gluten-free. Others load up on the wrong foods, e.g., Craisins and other dried fruit; overdo dairy; or snack on wheat-free but unhealthy foods like ice cream and chips.

2) Too much alcohol

3) Hypothyroidism--A lot more common than you'd think. In fact, this has been the case with a majority of people who have done everything right, yet either failed to lose weight or gained weight.

Those are the biggies.

I'd like to hear your personal stories of wheat elimination--the ups and downs, your success or failure, how you felt during the process, how easy or difficult, your eventual results. Just post them as a response to this blog post.

A niacin primer

29. July 2009 William Davis (19)

A reader of Life Extension reminded me of a piece I wrote about niacin a couple of years back.

Anyone desiring a primer on how and why to use niacin to correct lipid and lipoprotein patterns might find this useful.

While some people, no matter what they do, cannot tolerate niacin (about 10% of people), many others enjoy spectacular benefits.

Q: I recently had a cholesterol profile blood test and learned that I may be at risk of heart disease because my levels of beneficial HDL (high-density lipoprotein) are too low. I read that niacin could help increase my HDL, but my doctor said niacin is dangerous. Whom should I believe?

A: Your doctor would be right—if we were still living in 1985. Since then, however, we have learned how to use niacin (vitamin B3) safely and effectively. Unfortunately, many physicians have not yet caught up, or are still trapped by the idea that cholesterol-lowering statin drugs are the only way to decrease cardiovascular disease risk. I have personally prescribed niacin for thousands of patients as part of our program to reverse coronary disease. In fact, niacin is the closest thing we have available to a perfect treatment that corrects most of the causes of coronary heart disease.

Continued here.

What would life be like . . . ?

29. July 2009 William Davis (16)

What if coronary heart disease could be prevented--no eliminated--applying methods that were accessible, easy, and cheap?

What if coronary heart disease and, thereby, angina, heart attack, sudden cardiac death, ventricular tachycardia, heart failure, and the cerebrovascular equivalent, stroke, could be eliminated using readily available tools available to virtually everyone in the U.S.? And, over a year, it cost less than a once-a-week latte at Starbucks?

How would the healthcare landscape change? What would become of hospitals, manufacturers of the billions of dollars of hospital equipment necessary to supply the cardiovascular hospital industry (e.g., stent manufacturers, catheter manufacturers, defibrillator and pacemaker manufacturers, pharmaceutical manufacturers who no longer have to produce the volume of antiplatelet agents, inotropic drugs, antiarrhythmic agents, etc.)?

How would our lives change? What would the end of life look like if people stopped dying of heart attack, sudden cardiac death, congestive heart failure at age 55, 65, or 75, but lived out their lives to die of something unrelated?

What if the solution had little or nothing to do with drugs but evolved from simple nutritional strategies, supplements meant to correct the deficiencies that accompany modern lifestyles, and a few unique strategies targeted towards the genetic predispositions that lead to heart disease?

What if all this were possible at a cost of a few hundred dollars per year?

It would certainly be a cataclysmic change. Hospitals would shrink to a small remnant of their current gargantuan, dozens-per-city presence. The need for hospital staff would be slashed by over half. The rare cardiologist would tend to congenital heart disease sufferers and other unusual forms of heart disease and he or she might have a colleague or two in all of a major city.

Healthcare costs would plummet, no longer having to sustain the enormous cardiovascular healthcare machine of hospitals, staff, industry, and long-term care. Health insurance, private or public, would drop by 50%.

It would free up nearly a trillion dollars that could be redirected towards other pursuits, like schools and research. Extraordinary leaps forward in quality of life and science would emerge, given that magnitude of funding.

It's not as grand a thought experiment as Alan Weisman's The World Without Us, in which he imagines what the world would be like without humans altogether.

How long would it take to recover lost ground and restore Eden to the way it must have gleamed and smelled the day before Adam, or Homo habilis, appeared? Could nature ever obliterate all our traces? How would it undo our monumental cities and public works, and reduce our myriad plastics and toxic synthetics back to benign, basic elements?

But I believe this thought experiment--what would life be like without heart disease because it was eliminated using inexpensive tools-- is more plausible, more likely to occur. In fact, it has already begun to occur.

See those vines growing up the side of the hospital?

Are jelly beans heart healthy?

27. July 2009 William Davis (0)

Total Fat

3 g or less

Less than 6.5 g

Saturated Fat

1 g or less

1 g or less

Cholesterol

20 mg or less

20 mg or less

Sodium

480 mg or less per RACC* & labeled serving

480 mg or less per RACC* & labeled serving

Nutrients

Contain 10 percent or more of the daily value of 1 of 6 nutrients; vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, protein or dietary fiber

Contain 10 percent or more of the daily value of 1of 6 nutrients; vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, protein or dietary fiber

Trans fat

Less than 0.5 g per RACC* and labeled serving

Less than 0.5 g per RACC* and labeled serving

Whole Grain

N/A

51 percent by weight/RACC*

Minimum Dietary Fiber

N/A

1.7 g/RACC of 30 g

2.5 g/RACC of 45 g

2.8 g/RACC of 50 g

3.0 g/RACC of 55 g

(RACC=Reference Amount Customarily Consumed)

Thyroid correction: The woeful prevailing standard

27. July 2009 William Davis (16)

Rich has been taking Synthroid or levothyroxine for many years.

When Rich came to my office for continuing management 10 years after his bypass surgery, I checked his thyroid panel:

TSH 7.44 uIU/L

Free T4 1.88 ng/dl (Ref range 0.80-1.90 ng/dl)

Free T3 2.0 pg/ml (Ref range 2.3-4.2 pg/ml)

Rich's thyroid hormone distortions--high TSH, low T3--are sufficient to account for a tripling of heart attack risk long-term.

As Richs' thyroid was being managed by his primary care physician, I notified this doctor of Rich's panel. He therefore increased Rich's levothyroxine from 75 mcg per day to 100 mcg per day. Another thyroid panel several months later showed:

TSH 0.98 uIU/L

Free T4 2.38 ng/dl

Free T3 2.0 pg/ml

As you would expect, increasing the intake of the T4 hormone (levothyroxine) increased free T4 and suppressed TSH.

But what about T3? It's unchanged.

Indeed, Rich says that he feels no better and, in fact, wakes up in the morning foggy and requires a nap in the afternoon.

In my experience, the majority (approximately 70%, but not 100%) experience subjective improvement when T3 is added in some form and the free T3 level is increased. While the data (summarized here) are conflicted on whether there is objective benefit to T3 management and supplementation, there seems to be a poorly-quantified subjective improvement.

Rich's increased levothyroxine dose decreased (calculated) LDL cholesterol by 10 mg/dl. Based on my experience, I'll bet that his lipid panel would likely be further improved with T3 correction.

What I find incredible is the absolutely rabid resistance waged by primary care physicians and endocrinologists against this notion of T3, mostly due to fears of the remote likelihood of inducing atrial fibrillation and osteoporosis, while they are ready to prescribe lifelong statin drugs without a moment's hesitation.

Launch of new Track Your Plaque newsletter: Cardiac Confidential

27. July 2009 William Davis (3)

Track Your Plaque has just launched a new version of our newsletter. We call it Cardiac Confidential.

Cardiac Confidential is meant to be a no-holds-barred, go-for-the-throat exposé of the world of heart disease. We will expose the dishonest, reveal what we view as the underlying truth. We'll even have an occasional "undercover" report of what goes on in hospitals and the go-for-the-money world of heart procedures.

Read the first issue here (open to everyone) in which "Laurie" describes her encounter with a sleazy, profiteering cardiologist. She survives, but not without paying a dear price.

Thyroid: Be a perfectionist

27. July 2009 William Davis (18)

If you'd like to reduce LDL cholesterol with nearly as much power as a statin drug, think thyroid.

When thyroid is corrected to ideal levels, LDL cholesterol drops 20, 30, 40 mg/dl or more, depending on how poor thyroid function and how high LDL are at the start. The poorer the thyroid function (the higher the TSH or the lower the T3 and T4) and the higher the LDL cholesterol, the more LDL drops with thyroid correction.

(For those of you minding LDL particle size, such as Track Your Plaque Members, the "dominant" LDL species will drop: If you are genetic small LDL, small LDL will drop. If you have mostly large LDL because of being wheat-free and sugar-free, then large LDL will drop.)

One of the problems is that many healthcare providers blindly follow what the laboratory says is "normal" or the "reference range," which is usually nothing more than a population average (actually the mean +/- 2 standard deviations, a common method of developing references ranges). In other words, a substantial degree of low thyroid function, or hypothyroidism, can be present when your doctor adheres to the reference range provided by the laboratory.

What does it mean to achieve ideal thyroid status? My list includes:

--Normal oral temperature of 97.3 F first upon arising. (The thyroid is the body's thermoregulatory organ.)
--TSH 1.0 mIU/L or less
--Free T3 upper half "normal" range
--Free T4 upper half "normal" range
--You feel good: mental clarity, energy, upbeat mood. You lose weight when you try.

Iodine replacement should be part of any thyroid health effort. Iodine is not an optional trace mineral, no more than vitamin C is optional (else your teeth fall out). The only dangers to iodine replacement are to those who have been starved of iodine for many years; increase iodine and the thyroid can over-respond. I've seen this happen in 2 of the last 300 people who have supplemented iodine.

In my view, neglecting T3 replacement is absurd. While it is not clear to me why many otherwise healthy people have low T3 at the low range of "normal" or even in the below-normal range, people feel better and have better health--faster weight loss, reduced LDL, reduced triglycerides, they are happier and enjoy more energy--when T3 is increased to the upper half of the reference range. (Crucial question: Why is the 5'-deiodinase enzyme that converts T4 to T3 inhibited, resulting in reduced free T3? What is in our diets or environment that is exerting this effect? I don't have answer, but we sorely need one.)

It pays to be a perfectionist when it comes to thyroid. Not only do you feel better, but LDL cholesterol can drop with a statin-like magnitude, but with none of the adverse effects.

If interested, Track Your Plaque offers fingerstick blood spot testing that you can perform in your own home. Each test kit will test for: TSH, free T3, free T4, along with a thyroid peroxidase antibody (a marker for Hashimoto's thyroiditis, an autoimmune inflammatory condition of the thyroid).

Nutrition Syllogism

21. July 2009 William Davis (21)

What do you think of these chains of logic?

Cyanide is a potent lethal poison; carbon monoxide is a less lethal poison.
Therefore: plenty of carbon monoxide is good.

Having uterine cancer is a bad thing. Having uterine fibroids is a less bad thing.
Therefore: plenty of uterine fibroids are good.

These are obvious examples of seriously flawed logic. Students of logic and philosophy will recognize the above erroneous sequences as examples of the twisted arguments often used to persuade an argumentative opponent of the logic of a premise. As long ago as 335 B.C., Greek philosopher, Aristotle, recognized the pitfalls of thinking in such arguments. You think we’d know better by now.

Try this one:

White enriched flour is a bad for health; whole grains are less bad for health.
Therefore: plenty of whole grains are good for health.

Ouch!

In the 1960s, we all ate hot dogs on white buns, white flour Wonder Bread® sandwiches, Mom made cookies and cupcakes with white flour. Then, during the 1970s and 1980s, clinical studies were performed demonstrating that whole wheat and whole grains reduced colon cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease compared to white flour. In other words, add back fiber and B vitamins and health benefits develop: No argument here.

Therefore: whole grains must be good for health. Further, lots of whole grains?unlimited quantities of whole grains many times per day, every day?must be even better. Even the USDA says so on their nutrition pyramid, with 8-11 servings of grains per day, 4 of which should be whole grains, at the widest portion of the pyramid.

But what happens when you follow this logic through and fill your diet with whole grains?

Look around you and it’s easy to see: Appetite increases, people become obese, blood sugar increases, diabetes develops, HDL cholesterol plummets, triglycerides skyrocket, inflammatory patterns (e.g., c-reactive protein, or CRP) increase, small LDL (the number one cause for heart disease in the obese U.S.!) shoots through the roof.

I would no more fill my diet with “healthy whole grains” than I would close my garage door with the car running.

Is pomegranate juice healthy?

19. July 2009 William Davis (20)

Pomegranate juice, 8 oz:

Sugars, total 31.50 g

Sucrose 0.00 g

Glucose (dextrose) 15.64 g

Fructose 15.86 g

In your quest to increase the flavonoids in your diet, do you overexpose yourself to fructose?

Remember: Fructose increases LDL cholesterol, apoprotein B, small LDL, triglycerides, and substantially increases deposition of visceral fat (fructose belly?). How about a slice of whole grain bread with that glass of pomegranate juice? The Heart Association says it's all low-fat!

(Coming on the Track Your Plaque website: A full in-depth Special Report on fructose in all its glorious forms and whether this is truly an issue for your health. Fructose tables and the scientific data to establish a safe "threshold" value will be included.)

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Honeydew melon

18. July 2009 William Davis (4)

Honeydew melon:

Sugars, total 51.97 g

Sucrose 15.87 g

Glucose 17.15 g

Fructose 18.94 g

Because sucrose is half fructose (the other half is glucose), there are approximately 26 grams of fructose per one-half honeydew melon.

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Where do you find fructose?

Do heart scans cause cancer?

Goodbye, fructose

The statin-free life

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone

Roger's near-miss CT angiogram experience

The Myth of Prevention: Letter to the Wall Street Journal

A victory for SHAPE, CT heart scans, and doing what is RIGHT

Sleep: A to Zzzzzzzzzz

Track Your Plaque data abstract

Small fish oil capsules

Low-carb eating for diabetes

Interview with an outspoken advocate of truth in diabetes

The Marshall Protocol and other fairy tales

Breaking news from the American College of Cardiology meetings

Why health care costs are ballooning