The sun is getting stronger and the days are getting longer, even here in Wisconsin.

Some people are coming to the office with nice tans obtained by sunning themselves for several hours. Others have come back from winter getaways to Florida, Arizona, or the tropics, also sporting nice, dark tans.

Several people, in fact, were so confident that sunning themselves provided sufficient vitamin D that they reduced their usual dose. Some even stopped their vitamin D altogether.

But, when blood levels of 25(OH) vitamin D were checked, they were virtually all low, sometimes as low as <20 ng/ml. Yet all had nice tans.

Why does this happen? Why would people with dark tans remain deficient in vitamin D?

One big factor is age: Anyone over 40 years old is fooling themselves if they think that a tan ensures raising vitamin D levels to a desirable range. Also, the more you tan, the more melanin skin pigment accumulates, and the more vitamin D activation in the skin is blocked.

Weight is another factor: Heavier people need more vitamin D, sometimes three- or four-fold more than slender people.

Why does aging result in inefficient skin activation of vitamin D? It seems that, once we are beyond our reproductively useful years, this ticking clock of aging gets triggered. The older we get, the less activation of vitamin D occurs in our skin, the less of the youth-maintaining, disease-preventing benefits of vitamin D we obtain with sun exposure.

The message: Don't rely on a tan to gauge the adequacy of vitamin D. Maybe that works when you're 16 years old, but not at age 50 or 60. There's only one way to know your vitamin D status: a blood level of 25(OH) vitamin D.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

I admit it: In years past, I spoke for the drug industry.

In retrospect, I now regret it. In fact, I'm downright embarassed by it.

In the 1960s, you’d purchase a new car. If you changed the oil, adhered to the maintenance schedule—and were lucky—you might expect to get 100,000 miles out of your automobile. Only an occasional car made it beyond that odometer hurdle. Even if the engine made it past the 100,000 mile milestone, the automobile body would inevitably start to develop rusting decay at the edges of the fenders, signaling body rot that threatened to open gaping holes of metal.

Then along came Toyota and Honda, whose cars easily reached 100,000 miles and well beyond, reliably and with bodies intact. As this realization sunk into the American consciousness, many asked, “Why can’t American automakers accomplish the same sort of trouble-free longevity?” “Buy American” emerged as a mantra to preserve American jobs and prop up an economy vulnerable to the superior automotive products from Detroit’s competitors.

Of course, American automakers have since responded to the challenge posed by the Japanese auto industry and produced automobiles that essentially matched the reliability and longevity of Japanese cars. But, the great unanswered question remains: For years before the onslaught of Japanese competition, did Detroit quietly plot to maintain a policy of planned obsolescence that ensured Americans would have to scrap the old and buy a new car every few years whenever the odometer tipped over 100,000 miles?

We will never know. At worst, it may represent the behind-closed-doors, back-slapping sort of plotting that, for many years, maximized revenues, ensured shareholder returns, and secured executive paychecks. Or, perhaps it wasn’t some evil conspiracy but just complacency, a profitable position of comfort at that. There’s little incentive for industry insiders to reveal such self-incriminating information.

But the example set by the American auto industry presents an unusual learning opportunity for us, a chance to make some useful comparisons to the heart healthcare industry.

Is the American healthcare industry also guilty of practicing a policy of “planned obsolescence,” just like Detroit? The product that helplessly crumbles is, of course, not your rust-riddled automobile, but you.

When someone sees a primary care physician year after year, yet appears one morning in the emergency room, clutching his or her chest in agony from the closed coronary artery responsible for a life-threatening heart attack—prompting the flurry of activity that results in $100,000 in hospital procedures . . .

Perhaps “planned obsolescence” is not the perfect phrase to describe the situation, but the principle still applies: A failure to inform the patient that such an outcome was possible—no, probable—makes you wonder whether such an outcome was predictable and thereby preventable in the first place.

What should we do when planned obsolescence leads us down a path engineered by someone who has something, often substantial, to gain? Even if it's just complacency, or adhering to a beaten, ineffective status quo (can you say "low-fat diet?), it all points in the same direction.

You have a choice: Refuse to buy a 1962 Impala of health care, otherwise known as conventional heart disease management.

Melatonin is fascinating stuff.

In addition to its use as a sleep aid, melatonin exerts possible effects on cardiovascular parameters, including anti-oxidative action on LDL, reduction in sympathetic (adrenaline-driven) tone, and reduction in blood pressure.

Several studies document the blood pressure-reducing effect of melatonin:

Daily nighttime melatonin reduces blood pressure in male patients with essential hypertension.

Melatonin reduces night blood pressure in patients with nocturnal hypertension.

Prolonged melatonin administration decreases nocturnal blood pressure in women.

Blood pressure-lowering effect of melatonin in type 1 diabetes.

But blood pressure may be increased when melatonin is added to nifedipine, a calcium channel blocker:

Cardiovascular effects of melatonin in hypertensive patients well controlled by nifedipine: a 24-hour study.

Effects on BP tend to be modest, on the order of 5-8 mmHg reduction in systolic, half that in diastolic.

But don't pooh-pooh such small reductions, however, as small reductions exert mani-fold larger reductions in cardiovascular events like heart attack and stroke. NIH-sponsored NHANES data (see JNC VII), for example, document a doubling of risk for each increment of BP of 20/10. The Camelot Study demonstrated a reduction in cardiovascular events from 23% in placebo subjects to 16.7% in subjects taking amlodipine (Norvasc) with a 5 mm reduction in systolic pressure, 2 mmHg drop in diastolic pressure. Small changes, big benefits.

Many people take melatonin at bedtime and are disappointed with the effects. However, a much better way is to take melatonin several hours before bedtime, e.g., take at 7 pm to fall asleep at 10 pm. Don't think of melatonin as a sleeping pill; think of it as a sleep hormone, something that simply prepares your body for sleep by slowing heart rate, reducing body temperature, and reducing blood pressure. (You may need to modify the interval between taking melatonin and sleep, since individual responsiveness varies quite a bit.)

I also favor the sustained-release preparations, e.g., 5 mg sustained-release. Immediate-release, while it exerts a more rapid onset of sleep, allows you to wake up prematurely, The sustained-release preparations last longer and allow longer sleep.

The dose varies with age, with 1 mg effective in people younger than 40 years, higher doses of 3, 5, even 10 or 12 mg in older people. Sustained-release preparations also should be taken in slightly higher doses.

The only side-effect I've seen with melatonin is vivid, colorful dreams. Perhaps that's a plus!

Thinking about the programs for health care reform proposed by the three Presidential candidates highlights a distinct peculiarity of American style health care.

American health care is shaped to an unprecedented degree by five forces:

1) The drug industry

2) The health insurance industry

3) Hospitals

4) Fear of litigation

5) The uniquely American attitude of refusing compromise in access to health care services or products, regardless of the cost (for those who can afford health insurance)

All five of these unique forces have created this thing (monster?) we call health care. Remove or modify any one of these forces, and the health care landscape would look dramatically different.

The drug industry has recently been on the receiving end of plenty of negative press. This warms my bones. Decades of heavy-handed lobbying, sleazy marketing to physicians (all too willing to be wined and dined), and behind-the-scenes manipulation of clinical data are coming back to bite them. Sadly, the drug industry is so powerful that this bit of fuss is not likely to substantially change their ways.

I am thrilled that all three Presidential candidates agree that reimportation of drugs from outside the U.S. is a good idea. While the shrug of the shoulders federal and state attitude towards importation of drugs from Canada has not resulted in cost savings sufficient to impact on overall costs, it surely will lead to savings when practiced on a broad basis by pharmacies, distributors, and other bulk buyers of pharmaceuticals.

Senator Obama, in particular, has used strong language in his criticism of the health insurance industry, tough talk that is needed in an age in which insurance executives bring home salaries in the hundreds of millions of dollars and stock prices are climbing due to substantial profit gains within the industry, going against the grain of increasingly costly premiums. However, the Clinton experiment of federalizing health care during Bill Clinton's term that caused all the big boys to band together (most notably health insurance companies and drug industry) has tempered enthusiasm for attacking the insurance industry head-on. In both Democrats' health care reform proposals, the option of private insurance is preserved, as it is in the McCain proposal.

How about hospitals? Hospitals, though on a smaller scale than the nationwide reach of the drug and insurance industries, aim to maintain health service delivery in hospitals. For instance, the high-tech bypass service in the hospital gets plenty of local media coverage, as does the newest DaVinci robotic surgery, bariatric surgery, and other revenue-rich services. Many hospitals have forgotten that their mission is delivery of health, of which revenue creation and profiting from disease should only be part.

How big is fear of litigation? Estimates vary, but several have quoted numbers in the neighborhood of 20 to 30% of overall health care costs. At the street level from what I see, I'd say at least that much. Fear of litigation is rampant, often unrestrained, and sometimes leads to the craziest, illogical sequence of testing. Chest pain, for instance, no matter how trivial, will typically trigger around $5000 worth of testing (nuclear stress test, echocardiogram, laboratory work, etc.) Emergency room visit for a minor injury? CT scan of head, chest, abdomen. A formula to minimize this aspect of fear in health care delivery would generate enormous savings.

The last issue, the uncompromising nature of Americans in health--always wanting the latest new drug, new procedure, "best" surgeon--often simply causes the health care consumer to fall victim to marketing. If a hospital advertises the newest procedure, people want it regardless of whether it represents genuine improvement over the older procedure. The newest sleeping pill, antidepressant, antihypertensive, etc. replaces the old yet equivalent product, but at considerably greater cost.

I am optimistic that, regardless of which candidate gains the White House, that some reform is on the way. I do fear, however, that progress will be small and incremental, since major change of the sort that would slash hundreds of billions of dollars in costs would rouse the powers-that-be (drug industry, health insurers, etc.) to once again combine forces and combat the disruption of their franchise.

Until you and I see real change and cost savings coming through either legislation or free market advances, we need to continue to make full use of the self-empowering health information that we gain through venues like the web.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

No doubt, our little informal poll asking readers whether they have lipoprotein(a), is skewed towards people inclined to respond because they have this genetic trait.

Nonetheless, the response is telling. Of 82 respondents:

--40 (48%) said they did have Lp(a)

--16 (19%) said that they did not have Lp(a)

--26 (31%) said that they did not know whether or not they had Lp(a)

Though admittedly an informal analysis, I'd draw several conclusions from this simple "experiment".

One, while the proportion of people responding that they have Lp(a) may not be accurate, it is a prevalent genetic risk factor that, according to formal studies, is present in 17% of people with coronary or vascular disease, 11% of the broader population. This number may be even higher if the newer particle number assays (measurements) are used (with results expressed in nmol/L), since an occasional person with a "normal" Lp(a) in mg/dl (weight-based) will prove to have increased Lp(a) by nmol/L (particle number-based). (The reason for this phenomenon is not clear. It may be consequent to variation in apo(a) size, with larger apo(a) varieties of Lp(a) occasionally escaping detection .) As our little poll shows, plenty of people have Lp(a).

Two, readers of this blog tend to be highly motivated, sophisticated, and knowledgeable about health and heart disease. Yet a substantial portion--31%--did not know whether they have this crucial risk factor. That shouldn't be. The unnecessary difficulty of getting this simple blood test performed has been driven home to me repeatedly when I identify this factor in someone and then suggest that their grown children and parents, each of whom have a 50% chance of having Lp(a), be tested. It's not uncommon for a 35-year old son, for instance, to say that his doctor refused, claiming it is an unproven risk marker, or to simply say that he/she doesn't know what it is.

No doubt, just knowing whether you have Lp(a) or not is not the end of the story. Reducing Lp(a) and its associated co-factors is no easy matter. With several hundred patients in my practice with Lp(a), it occupies much of my time and energy. Sometimes it leads to enormous successes , but it can also pose a real challenge.

There should no longer be any doubt that Lp(a) is associated with significantly increased risk of cardiovascular disease. This has been demonstrated conclusively across dozens of studies. Risk from Lp(a) is over and above that posed by other risk factors; it also amplifies the risk posed by other factors, e.g., small LDL, inflammatory phenemena, homocysteine, total LDL, low HDL.

In the world of Lp(a), our two most desperate needs for the future are:

1) Better education of physicians and the public, and

2) More effective treatment options.

Thus, our reasons to form The Lipoprotein(a) Research Foundation. Steps to gain tax-exempt status are being pursued as we speak.

I can't help but wonder whether, like vitamin D, a solution is right beneath our noses. An investment in research to fund the trials to better explore both basic science as well as practical treatment options might yield an answer more readily than we think. Wouldn't that be great?

Just a muse.

Endogenous substances are those that are already contained within our bodies. They are part of basic human equipment.

Exogenous substances are those that come from outside of our bodies. This includes various substances in foods, drugs (most, though not all), and pesticides.

I often mull over all of the tools we use in the Track Your Plaque program to achieve control over this thing called coronary plaque. It struck me that just about all the supplements we use that seem to provide outsized benefits are all endogenous substances themselves:

--Omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil
--Vitamin D
--l-arginine
--Niacin (vitamin B3)

Many of the other substances, though not directly relevant to our plaque-control efforts, but are among the most effective nutritional supplements, also supplement endogenous levels: calcium pyruvate, creatine, acetylcarnitine, DHEA, testosterone, progesterone, growth hormone, pregnenolone, phenylalanine, tyrosine, melatonin, etc.

Curiously, most drugs are not meant to directly supplement endogenous levels, but are designed either to enhance or block an enzyme (e.g., acetylcholinesterase inhibitors that block breakdown of acetylcholine; HMG CoA reductase inhibitors to block cholesterol synthesis; angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors to reduce blood pressure), to exert toxic effects on an organism (antibiotics, antivirals), or to exert an entirely unique effect that does not ordinarily occur in the human body (some anti-cancer drugs, for instance). (This is an admitted, vast over-simplification.)

That's not to say that any endogenous substance is desirable or safe when supplemented. Cortisol, thyroid hormone, and estrogens are three examples of endogenous substances that have downsides when administered at slightly more than physiologic concentrations.

Nonetheless, it makes me wonder if the world of endogenous substance supplementation has not been fully explored. Are there other endogenous substances that are as potent and wonderful, for instance, as vitamin D but not yet fully appreciated? I'm sure there are.

Reprinted here is the unfailingly informative Vitamin D Newsletter from Dr. John Cannell. Although there's little here specifically about heart disease, there's so much great information about vitamin D that I thought most would still appreciate it.

The Vitamin D Newsletter

May, 2008

Yesterday's Washington Post article, Too-Good-To-Be-True Nutrient?, sums up the April 9th vitamin D symposium at UCSD in San Diego, which was nothing short of spectacular. Carole Baggerly outdid herself organizing it and explaining how she got involved. Make no mistake; Carole is both serious and energetic. She told about her efforts to introduce resolutions at upcoming meetings of various professional groups. Then she introduced the volunteers from the San Diego Black Nurses Association who made sure the conference went off without a hitch. Then Carole introduced the four speakers. The slides of each speaker are available at Grassroots Health.

Before I tell you the highlights of the conference, I'd like to tell you about another conference, this one in Germany, this May 17th and 18th. It is the Third International Symposium on Vitamin D Analogs in Cancer Prevention and Therapy. Readers know how I feel about giving analogs to vitamin D deficient patients instead of vitamin D but speakers include Michael Holick, Reinhold Veith, Bill Grant, Tai Chen, Heidi Cross, David Feldman, and Roger Bouillon, all of whom know the importance of the nutrient. Most of this conference is for scientists, not lay people. However, Michael Holick is the first speaker and if you have not heard his latest talk about vitamin D, it might be worth a trip to Germany.

The first San Diego speaker was Dr. William Grant. Since leaving NASA to begin a full-time career as a vitamin D researcher, Bill has published dozens of studies and has another dozen in the works. Using ecological studies (from Greek oikos, house + German -logie, study or studying your own house) of UVB irradiance and cancer, Bill reported that 15 cancers (colon, esophageal, gallbladder, gastric, pancreatic, rectal, small intestinal, bladder, kidney, prostate, breast, endometrial, ovarian, Hodgkin's lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) are associated with lower UVB light. He concluded that 257,000 cancer deaths in 2007 in the USA were accounted for by inadequate vitamin D levels. Of course the problem with ecological studies is that it easy to be vitamin D deficient in Miami, all you have to do is listen to your doctor's advice and stay out of the sun. Recently, a group from the Arizona Cancer Center found almost 80% of Arizonians had levels below 30 ng/ml. So much for sunny spots.

Jacobs ET, et al. Vitamin D insufficiency in southern Arizona. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Mar;87(3):608-13.

The next speaker was Professor Cedric Garland. I found myself wondering how he did it. I became convinced that vitamin D prevents cancer five years ago. Cedric and his brother Frank and his colleague Ed Gorham knew it 30 years ago! I know what it is like to tell someone that vitamin D prevents cancer and see them think, "Here we go again, another miracle vitamin." I know what it is like to try and explain and watch people die unnecessarily. But I've only had that experience for five years. Cedric has dealt with that frustration for thirty years. Almost thirty years ago, Cedric and Frank Garland published evidence that vitamin D prevents cancer. In fact, it was Cedric's first publication. Thankfully, the paper was recently recognized as being so important that it was republished in 2006 by the International Journal of Epidemiology. You can read the entire paper for free by clicking on the second link below and then clicking on "free final text", courtesy of Oxford Journals.

Garland CF, Garland FC. Do sunlight and vitamin D reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? Int J Epidemiol. 1980 Sep;9(3):227-31.

Garland CF, Garland FC. Do sunlight and vitamin D reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? Int J Epidemiol. 2006 Apr;35(2):217-20.

Cedric began by showing the incidence of type-1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis by latitude. I had no idea that the latitudinal data was so strong for type 1 diabetes in children. This disease is almost nonexistent around the equator. Type-1 diabetes is but one of the three modern childhood epidemics caused by the sunlight-hating dermatologists, the other two, I think, are autism and asthma. Next he showed latitude and 25(OH)D levels, which reminded me to be suspicious of high levels, unless they use accurate methods of detecting 25(OH)D. Some methods used, even in this country, are over detecting vitamin D and telling patients their levels are above 50 ng/ml when they are, in reality, much lower. Cedric's data showed Thailand had mean levels of 70 ng/ml, which I doubt and suspect were due to inaccurate 25(OH)D tests. He then reviewed evidence of the 25(OH)D levels needed to prevent numerous cancers. The safest levels are somewhere above 50 ng/ml. Cedric spent most of his time presenting an entirely new theory of carcinogenesis, one dependent on vitamin D maintaining cellular junctions. I suspect this paper will also be reprinted in 20 years. The only disagreement I have is with his recommendation for cancer patients to start at fairly low doses. For reasons I recently explained, the risk benefit analysis indicates cancer patients should take 5,000 to 10,000 IU per day and they may have no time to lose. Why worry about the phantom of vitamin D toxicity if you may be dying of cancer? Just have your calcium checked along with frequent 25(OH)D levels. Get your levels up to 70-90 ng/ml if you have cancer.

Does vitamin D treat cancer?

The next speaker was Professor Bruce Hollis. He reviewed basic physiology of vitamin D and emphasized that the entire system is designed to deal with an excess not with an insufficiency of vitamin D. Numerous mechanisms are available in your body to prevent vitamin D toxicity but few are available to deal with insufficiency. Then he briefly mentioned one of the most important discoveries about vitamin D in the last few years, one where Professor Neil Binkley of the University of Wisconsin was senior author. (In the last four years, Professor Binkley has become a prolific vitamin D expert and I hope Carol Baggerly is able to get him to speak at some of the upcoming conferences she hopes to sponsor.) As I have pointed out before, Hollis and Binkley's crucial discovery was that the body doesn't start storing the parent compound, cholecalciferol, until 25(OH)D levels reach about 50 ng/ml. They showed, using basic steroid pharmacology, that 50 ng/ml should be considered the lower limit of adequate 25(OH)D levels.

Hollis BW, Wagner CL, Drezner MK, Binkley NC. Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):631-4.

Bruce kept the audience enthralled with a review of all the disease states that indicate 25(OH)D levels need to be much higher than they are now, that is, the multiple biomarkers that suggest the lower limit of 25(OH)D levels should be above 40 ng/ml and closer to 50 ng/ml. Then Professor Hollis spoke of his ongoing study in pregnant women and how he got approval to use 4,000 IU of vitamin D per day back in 2003, quite an accomplishment. He also reviewed another one of his research projects, one that answered an age old question, why is breast milk a poor source of vitamin D? How were prehistoric infants supposed to get their vitamin D, by lying out in the sun where saber tooth tigers would eat them? No, they were hidden in caves and had to have another source or the human race would have died out long ago because rickets destroys a woman's and infant's chance to live through childbirth due to rachitic deformations of the mother's pelvis. Carol Wagner and Bruce Hollis, together with their colleagues, answered that age old question, human breast milk is a poor vitamin D source because virtually all modern mothers are vitamin D deficient. That is, when pregnant women keep their levels where we think prehistoric human levels were, about 50 ng/ml, breast milk becomes a rich source of vitamin D. First Carol and Bruce gave 2,000 IU per day, then 4,000 IU per day and finally 6400 IU of D3 per day to lactating women. Only at 6400 of D3/day did the women maintain both their own 25(OH)D levels and the levels of their breast feeding babies above 50 ng/ml. On 6400 IU/day, the vitamin D activity of the breast milk went from about 80 to 800 IU/L. Quite a discovery, and another reason for all of us to keep our levels above 50 ng/ml.

Wagner CL, Hulsey TC, Fanning D, Ebeling M, Hollis BW. High-dose vitamin D3 supplementation in a cohort of breastfeeding mothers and their infants: a 6-month follow-up pilot study. Breastfeed Med. 2006 Summer;1(2):59-70.

Professor Robert Heaney went last, discussing 74 slides. So much of what we know about vitamin D today is due to Robert's unceasing dedication to vitamin D, the most recent example being his and Joanne Lappe's randomized controlled trial showing that increasing baseline levels from 29 to 38 ng/ml reduced the risk of getting cancer by around 70%. He again pointed out that the body does not begin to consistently store much vitamin D until your levels get to around 50 ng/ml. He also went through multiple biomarkers of vitamin D. That is, what level or intakes do you have to have to reduce the incidence of multiple diseases? He covered calcium absorption, osteoporosis, risk of falling, muscle function, death and disability of the aged, TB, influenza, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and gum disease. How can one vitamin be involved in so many diseases? Simple said Dr. Heaney, "vitamin D is the key that unlocks the DNA library." He then reviewed toxicity and concluded there is no evidence that it occurs at levels below 200 ng/ml or with intakes (total) below 30,000 IU per day. Of course, we have no reason to think anyone needs 30,000 IU per day or levels of 200 ng/ml, which would be irresponsible. But someone with a serious cancer should consider getting their level up to 70-90 ng/ml and that may take 10,000 IU per day or even more in some people. As a rule of thumb, 1,000 IU will raise 25(OH)D levels by about 10 ng/ml.

Then Professor Heaney addressed a public health question. How much would we have to give all Americans to get 98% of people above 32 ng/ml without causing toxicity in anybody? The answer: 2,000 IU per day. Of course 32 ng/ml is not adequate but it would be a great first step. Furthermore, of the people left out, a high percentage would be African Americans. In fact, Dr. Talwar recently reported that 40% of African American women fail to achieve a level of 30 ng/ml even after taking 2,000 IU/day for a year.

Talwar SA, Aloia JF, Pollack S, Yeh JK. Dose response to vitamin D supplementation among postmenopausal African American women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Dec;86(6):1657-62.

He also discussed his recent study giving healthy adults 100,000 IU as a single dose. If you start with a baseline level of 28 ng/ml and take 100,000 IU as a single dose, mean levels will remain above 32 ng/ml for two months. If you rely on such stoss doses, but you start with a lower level, or want your levels above 50 ng/ml, how often do you need to take 100,000 IU? We don't know the answer to the last question but we know that Grey et al gave 50,000 IU per week for four weeks then 50,000 per month for a year to 21 patients with hyperparathyroidism. Blood levels rose from a mean of 11 ng/ml at baseline to 30 ng/ml at one year and levels did not continue to rise after six months. Remember, that means half the patients had levels lower than 30 ng/ml at the end of the year. Also remember that the metabolic clearance (how quickly you use it up) might be higher in certain disease states.

Grey A, et al. Vitamin D repletion in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism and coexistent vitamin D insufficiency. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Apr;90(4):2122-6.

That last point, metabolic clearance, is only one of a number of reasons that patients vary in their response to vitamin D. Remember, a surprising number of patients will tell their physician they are taking vitamin D when they are not, some will be taking preparations that have less in it than the label says, some will not absorb it, and some people weigh more than others. As Dr. Heaney points out, even if you know patients took 100,000 IU, great variably exists in individual response. At the end of two months some will have shown a minimal response and other much more. This is a field where little is known. Do different disease states use up vitamin D quickly? The answer is probably yes. Furthermore, variability also exists in how one metabolizes and catabolizes (breaks down) vitamin D. Also, what is the interactive effect of drugs that use the same liver enzymes for catabolism? We just don't know and that is why vitamin D blood testing is crucial. Remember, the only test to have is a 25-hydroxy-vitamin D. Do not let anyone get a 1,25-dihydroxy-vitamin D; it will not tell you if you are vitamin D deficient and is usually only indicated in evaluating high blood calcium.

As far as 25(OH)D levels go, many of you have written complaining about the high cost of a 25(OH)D levels at some labs. I've got some good news. For the next month, Life Extension Foundation is having a sale on their 25(OH)D blood tests, only $32.25, including the fee for drawing the blood. (No, we don't get funding from Life Extension, I wish we did.) Life Extension uses LabCorp, which, in turn, uses an accurate method to determine 25(OH)D levels, the DiaSorin Laiason method. The only problem is that DiaSorin, LabCorp, and Life Extension all say that 30 ng/ml is acceptable. It is not. Take enough vitamin D or get enough UVB radiation to get your levels above 50 ng/ml. To order the test, call Life Extension at 800 208-3444. Unfortunately, this offer is not available in New York, New Jersey or Rhode Island.

Also, Dr. James Dowd has written a fine book about vitamin D, The Vitamin D Cure. Get this, he is board certified in internal medicine, adult rheumatology, and pediatric rheumatology, an associate professor at Michigan State University, and runs his own Arthritis Institute and the Michigan Arthritis Research Center. He gives a formula for how much vitamin D you need but stresses the importance of testing to know for sure. He uses the formula of 2000 IU for every 100 pounds of body weight, which is as accurate an estimation as one can make without knowing baseline levels. Of course it depends on so many things, as Dr. Dowd points out, such as percentage body fat, latitude, skin type, sun exposure and age. He gives case after case examples of how vitamin D not just prevents disease, but seems to have a treatment effect. He also stresses three other things I've written about before, acid base balance, magnesium and potassium. If you can't get eat enough fruits and green leafy vegetables to obtain your potassium and magnesium and to get rid of low-grade chronic metabolic acidosis, then you should consider magnesium supplements and potassium bicarbonate supplements.

With these four experts and with this month's vitamin D news articles about breast cancer, brain function, artery blockage in the legs, soft skulls in babies, peripheral neuropathy in diabetics, childhood type-1 diabetes, colon cancer, and stress fractures and with the increasing number of scientists around the world jumping on the vitamin D express, why doesn't the government do something? What will it take? Like Carole says it will take a grassroots effort.

The first thing to do is tell your family and friends about vitamin D. Tell your doctor. Get your family's 25(OH)D tested, including your children. Once people begin to see it works, they will get their family and friends to take it. They will feel better and then the word will spread. All the government can do is make vitamin D illegal or limit the amount in each pill. The first is unlikely but not the second. With 5,000 IU capsules widely available, many people give no thought to taking one a day. But if the government limits the sale of anything over 400 IU and people had to take 12 of the 400 IU tablets, instead of one of the 5,000 IU, they might balk at so many pills. Before our officials in Washington take such a step, let's hope they read the Washington Post.

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. This newsletter is not copyrighted. Please reproduce it and post it on Internet sites. We are a nonprofit tax-exempt educational organization and depend on your donations.

The Vitamin D Council
9100 San Gregorio road
Atascadero, CA 93422

Judging by the conversations here, in the Track Your Plaque Forums, and elsewhere, it's clear that many people are searching for the perfect diet.

Should we reconsider the role of saturated fat? Are there fractions of fatty acids in saturated fat that are more or less harmful? How about the role of fats on cancer risk? How about the role of proteins like casein on cancer risk? Are there flavonoid sources, or combinations of flavonoids, that yield outsized health benefits? Is there a ceiling for omega-3 fatty acid supplementation? Is there a role for linolenic acid sources in cardiovascular disease prevention? And on and on.

All important issues, to be sure, ones that we've all zig-zagged through over the past 30 years.

I also see patients every day, however, who are not interested in micro-managing their diet. Their goals are less ambitious: lose 20 lbs, feel good, raise HDL, reduce triglycerides and small LDL, all while meeting all the other responsibilities in their lives, like children, spouses, maintaining a household and jobs.

So, if your interest is not to consider whether we should distinguish myristic acid sources from palmitic, or if epigallocatechin is better when combined with quercetin, then the biggest bang from your nutritional buck can come from one single strategy:

Eliminate wheat flour products

Secondarily, avoiding corn starch products and "goodies" (candy, fruit juices, fruit drinks, cookies, potato chips, etc.--you know what they are) is important, as well.

It means weighing your diet more heavily in favor of vegetables and fruits; lean meats; healthy oils; and raw nuts and seeds, all in unlimited quantities. Dairy products should be limited, however, because of sugar effects.

Of course, this advice clearly contradicts the pronouncements of the USDA Food Pyramid (6-8 servings of grains per day), the American Heart Association, and the diabetes-causing American Diabetes Association diabetic diets.

But, follow this approach, a diet strategy that appears too simple to be effective, and the majority of people lose dramatic amounts of weight, raise HDL, reduce triglycerides, reduce small LDL, reduce C-reactive protein and other inflammatory measures, reduce blood pressure, and raise self-esteem.

It's also a lot easier than it sounds (after habits are broken) because the appetite stimulating effect of wheat is removed. Many, if not most, people also experience increased energy, including elimination of the afternoon "slump," improved sleep, less mood swings, less intestinal problems.

It may not be perfect, but if your interest is to get the most with a modest amount of effort, it works like a charm for the majority of people.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

You're going to hate this.

Dr. Romero-Corral and colleagues from the Mayo Clinic presented an analysis of the National Institutes of Health-funded National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES-3) at the recent American College of Cardiology meetings. (Science Daily also has some coverage on this report.)

Their analysis identified 2127 adults from the NHANES database who had normal body-mass indexes (BMI) between 18.5 and 24.9 units), average age 41 years old. When broken down by percent body fat (measured with bioimpedance, meaning a small electrical current is passed through the body, much like what the store-bought Tanita devices do), with normal-weight obesity defined as >20% body fat in males, >30% body fat in females, 55% of participants met criteria for designation as normal-weight obesity.

Compared to people with similar BMI's but who fell below these body fat percentage cut-offs, the normal-weight obese men had increased ratios of Apo B to Apo A1; were much more likely to have increased blood sugars or be diabetic; have higher C-reactive protein (CRP); were several-fold more likely to meet other criteria for diagnosis of metabolic syndrome; had lower HDL cholesterols; and had higher blood pressure. Women with normal-weight obesity were four-fold more likely to have coronary disease.

While preliminary, this suggests that a substantial number of people with apparently favorable body weights and BMIs are, in actuality, overweight when judged by metabolic parameters. This then probably leads to increased risk for heart disease. We can then fairly readily extrapolate the argument that a reduction in weight to even lower BMIs likely reduces or corrects these patterns.

This argument is similar to that proposed by several others, arguing that BMI is a flawed measure, since it does not incorporate muscle mass or skeletal factors ("big- or small-boned"). Instead, they have argued that waist circumference is preferable.

The normal-weight obesity syndrome was originally identified by Dr. Antonio de Lorenzo and colleagues at the University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy, and reported in Normal weight obese (NWO) women: an evaluation of a candidate new syndrome. Their studies of women with this "syndrome" have suggested that heightened measures of inflammation are present despite apparently normal body weight and BMIs. One such report, Normal-weight obese syndrome: early inflammation?, is available in full-text.

Is there a lesson to be learned for the Track Your Plaque program? I believe there is. I believe it means that, if you have any weight-sensitive parameter, such as low HDL, small LDL, high triglycerides, high CRP, high blood sugar, high blood pressure, etc., then further weight loss might be considered, even if BMI is around 25. Obviously, there is a rational limit to how far you can push this concept. (Anorexia is not good for you either.)

I find this a useful concept. It provides yet another potential strategy to pursue when the above patterns are encountered. Perhaps it's also a way to cap reliance on niacin, whose effects closely mimic that of weight loss.

Now that's a lot more preferable to more and more statin drug, isn't it?

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

The cycle of eating, satiety, and hunger is largely driven by insulin and blood sugar responses.

For instance, if I eat a bowl of Cheerios, my blood sugar will surge to 140 mg/dl or higher (how high depending on insulin sensitivity). The flood of sugar from this Frankenfood triggers the release of insulin; blood sugar then settles back down.

The decline in blood sugar back down to normal or below normal powerfully triggers hunger. Variable degrees of shakiness, mental fogginess, and irritability also commonly occur. Most people experience this to some extent; some experience an exagerrated version called "reactive hypoglycemmia" and can suffer peculiar personality changes, irrational and even violent behavior.

Foods made with wheat or cornstarch raise blood sugar higher and faster than table sugar. Accordingly, blood sugar and insulin swing more widely with these food: highs are higher, lows are lower. People who therefore follow the standard mantra of "eat plenty of healthy whole grains" therefore experience a 2-3 hour long cycle of eating, brief satiety, and recurrent hunger. Cravings for snacks, impulsive eating, and overeating all occur during the period when blood sugar has dropped and hunger is powerfully triggered.

Eliminating this up and down fluctuation is therefore key to regaining control over appetite, losing weight, reducing small LDL and triglycerides, reducing blood sugar, and putting out the fires of inflammatory responses.

You can accomplish this by:

1) Eliminating foods that trigger the exagerrated rises in blood sugar--Wheat, cornstarch, polished rices, white and red potatoes, and candy.

2) Adding a healthy oil to every meal--a strategy that prolongs satiety and helps suppress sugar-insulin fluctuations.

The ful nuts and bolts details of this diet will be released with the New Track Your Plaque Diet. Part I has already been released; part II is coming any day on the Track Your Plaque website.

"You're a walking time bomb."

"I can't be responsible for what happens to you."

"Your blockage is in the artery called the 'widow-maker.'"

Familiar lines? These are the well-rehearsed warnings commonly used by cardiologists to persuade a patient to undergo a procedure (heart catheterization and all that follow).

Something happens when you hear these words about your health. Most people's resolve to explore alternatives, get another opinion, think it over, promptly crumbles when they hear these words. These particular warnings have been time-tested and are surprisingly effective.

Unlike many other conditions, heart disease does indeed result in catastrophic events without warning. Unlike, say, cancer, heart disease can wreak damage suddenly. That's all true.

What bothers me is the vigor with which the opportunity for hospital procedures is pursued.

The thinking is that hospitals procedures = saving a life. In the vast majority of people, this is nonsense. Procedures like heart catheterization, stents, bypass, do save lives if someone is in the throes of a catastrophe. The problem is that most people who undergo procedures are not in the midst of catastrophe and have every hope of avoiding it altogether with some simple efforts towards prevention.

Imagine this conversation: "Yes, Mr. Smith, you do have heart disease, Even though you have no symptoms and your stress test is normal, I believe that we should 1) identify the causes of your heart disease, then 2) correct them. Of course, if you don't want to engage in this prevention process, then there may be a point at which heart procedures may be necessary. But I believe that you have great hopes of avoiding them and avoiding heart attack."

In the last Heart Scan Blog post, I listed the poll results on success vs. failure in trying to obtain requested blood work through doctors. The results of that informal poll revealed that a substantial number of people encounter resistance to one degree or another in trying to obtain blood tests.

But the world of self-directed testing is growing. In addition to your ability to circumvent your doctor by getting your own blood work done, you can now:

--Obtain many imaging tests on your own--Heart scans can be obtained without your doctor's involvement, for instance. The ultrasound screening services, like that offered by Lifeline, mobile services that provide carotid, abdominal aorta, and osteoporosis screening services; full body scans, and others.
--Identify and treat some conditions--Internet information has gotten quite powerful to assist individuals in recognizing when a condition might be present. (However, this is also a landmine for trouble if not properly used.)
--Genetic testing--While just in its infancy, direct-to-consumer genetic testing is now offered by two outfits that I'm aware of.
--Unusual laboratory tests--e.g., heavy metals, omega-3 fatty acid content, cancer markers.

One drawback to the emerging world of self-directed testing: There is no insurance coverage. However, this will become less and less of an issue as time passes, since it is clear that most Americans will need to bear a greater portion of healthcare costs in future, since some conventional services may even be rationed for cost containment; higher copays and the emergence of medical savings accounts, providing the individual with more control over how healthcare dollars are spent; competition in self-directed healthcare services, which will reduce costs. Imagine, for instance, several more direct-to-consumer services to obtain blood tests appear. They will need to compete on price and service.

While my colleagues are terrified of the potential for abuse of such tests, my reaction is the opposite: I am enormously excited by the potential for individuals to seize more and more control over their health.

Of course, with greater freedom comes greater responsibility. But the long-term net result will be, in my view, a healthier, more satisfied healthcare consumer with reduced healthcare costs.

Here are the results of the latest Heart Scan Blog poll (84 respondents):

When you ask your doctor to perform a specific blood test, does he/she:

Do it without question?
38 (44%)

Do it but express reservations?
25 (29%)

Do it very grudgingly?
13 (15%)

Refuse outright?
9 (10%)

I was encouraged that 44% of respondents are/were able to obtain the blood work they requested without resistance. Sadly, however, the majority do either encounter reluctance or outright resistance.

Why would your doctor impose barriers to your ability to obtain laboratory tests? Well, several potential reasons:

1) He/she feels that they are charged with your health safety, and you might be led down a misleading, potentially dangerous path.

2) He/she feels that the tests are truly unnecessary and that you will be wasting the money of the "system."

3) He/she doesn't understand the tests, or is unfamiliar with them.

4) He/she feels that the doctor should be in complete control, not you. How dare you try to usurp the doctor-as-dictator of your health!

In reality, number 1 is understandable but rarely occurs. I have indeed have had requests, though rare, for outrageously inappropriate tests for the issue at hand, usually due to a misinterpretation of some information by the patient.

I'm not sure how often number 2 truly is. For instance, it is not uncommon for the doctor to have an ownership stake in the laboratory. There are several large primary care groups in Milwaukee who are notorious over-users of laboratory tests, with extraordinary batteries of dozens of tests every few months on the flimsiest reasons , clearly motivated by . . . money. On the other hand, there are physicians who do consciously try and order tests rationally and cost-effectively. I suspect that this is a minority.

I feel quite confident that number 3--your doctor's ignorance--is probably the most common reason he/she is reluctant or refuses to allow you access to a test. Most respondents I suspect are referring to many of the tests that I have been advocating, such as lipoprotein testing, lipoprotein(a), and vitamin D blood levels. I am uncertain how any of these could be construed to be dangerous. But ignorance of the value of these tests is rampant and resistance is nearly always based on not having explored these issues and having no appreciation for their importance. Of course, the beleaguered primary care physician is, no surprise, inundated by so much information across such a wide range that he/she has become expert at nothing, barely able to even deliver the full scope of genuine up-to-date primary services any longer. My colleagues, the cardiologists. . . well, you know my feelings about their attitudes: If it doesn't make money, then why should I bother? Devote months or years studying something that doesn't ring the cash register?

I see this dilemma as yet more evidence of the growing disenchantment with the doctor-as-gatekeeper model, the centuries old paternalistic "I will tell you what to do and you will do it." It worked when the doctor was educated and had access to knowledge you could never realistically obtain because you couldn't read, or you were too poor to afford books and education, or because medical information was made privy only to select people.

It's not that way anymore: The information you have access to is the same information my colleagues and I have access to: a level playing field. Along with the changing rules of the game, the game itself must eventually change.

I believe that people should have access to self-testing. Indeed, there is a growing industry of direct-to-consumer laboratory testing, such as that offered by Life Extension and LabSafe . For the most part, these offer tests without potential insurance reimbursement.

But the landscape is changing: We are just beginning a new age of self-empowerment, self-directed healthcare.

Whenever I say this, some people are angered that the majority of people will be too lazy, stupid, or poor to join the movement. What I am not saying is that we should agitate to make the system a patient-only directed process and completely remove the doctor. What I am saying is that the patient should and will play an increasingly important role in determining the content and direction of his/her care, especially as the patient becomes far more knowledgeable about issues relevant to his/her health.

The new tools of health measurement

If there were a new mantra of the new science of insight into health and long life, it would be “measure, measure, and measure.”

Never before in history have we had access to the analytical, laboratory, imaging, quantifying health tools that we have today. We can locate, scan, measure, all down as far as the level of basic codons of the genetic sequence.

The health-inquiring public has so far been permitted just a tip-of-the-tongue taste of these quantitative phenomena in such things as cholesterol values (“know your numbers!”) and blood pressure. Women now discuss their bone density scores over coffee, men their PSAs (prostate specific antigen).

But a curious irony has emerged: Like early 20th century males uncomfortable with women battling for suffrage, healthcare professionals, themselves comfortable with measurements and numbers, are distinctly uncomfortable when some of the same information falls into the hands of the healthcare consumer.

These phenomena play out in especially dramatic fashion in the world of heart health. The public now has broad access (many without a doctor’s order) to an extraordinary array of health measurement tools that can potentially yield enormous benefits for prevention of the most common conditions, information that can be applied by tracking over time.

Measures like heart scan scores, vitamin D blood levels, lipoprotein(a)--measures that most doctors have little or no interest in obtaining, yet they serve crucial roles in maintaining and tracking your health.

The new paradigm is emerging: the tools are getting better and better, they are becoming more accessible.

I continue my portrayal of the fictional hospital, St. Matthews. Though fictional, it is based on real facts, figures, and situations.

Despite their success, administrators at St. Matthews’s Hospital continually fret over how to further expand their enterprise.

Market share can be increased, of course, by competing effectively with other hospitals, but that can be a tough arena. After all, St. Matthews’ competitors deliver pretty much the same services, and draw areas for patients overlap. The last thing the hospital wants is the appearance that heart care is a “cookie cutter” process, the same everywhere. In fact, this trend has hospital administrators wringing their hands. Two competing hospital systems in town recently launched multi-million dollar ad campaigns employing some of the same aggressive tactics St. Matthews’ marketers used successfully in past.

If St. Matthews is going to grow, new markets will need to be explored. What other strategies can a hospital system use to continue climbing the growth curve?

St. Matthews’ hospital administrators have drawn a number of lessons from other businesses. How about squeezing more procedures out of the population you already take care of? That’s an age-old rule of business: your easiest sales come from repeat customers. A former stent patient is going to “need” annual nuclear stress testing ($4000), more stents (about $25,000–39,000 per hospitalization), CT angiogram ($1800–2400), bypass surgery ($84,000), and so on. “Check-up” catheterizations, though clearly of little or not benefit to patients, are silently encouraged, yet another example of the bonanza of repeat procedures possible.

The lesson that “once a heart patient, always a heart patient” has been honed to an art form in business practices at St. Matthews and other hospitals like it. If you enter the system through your primary care physician or cardiologist, there’s an excellent chance you’ll end up with several procedures, diagnostic and therapeutic, over the ensuing years. Accordingly, St. Matthews provides a very attentive after-discharge follow-up program, complete with access to friendly people, phone centers, “support groups,” and even an occasional festive get-together, all in an effort to ensure future return to the system.

All in all, the St. Matthews Hospital System is a hugely successful operation. It provides jobs for thousands of area residents and provides high-tech, high-quality healthcare. Like any business—and no doubt about it, St. Matthews is a business with all the trappings of a profit-seeking enterprise—it grows to serve its own interests. The tobacco industry didn’t grow to its gargantuan proportions by doing good, but by selling a product to an unsuspecting public. So, too, hospitals.

Curiously, hospitals like St. Matthews continue to operate under the sheltered guise of not-for-profit institution with the associated tax benefits, ostensibly serving the public good. This means that all end-of-year excess revenues are re-invested and not distributed to investors. But non-profit does not mean that individuals within the system can’t benefit, and benefit handsomely. Under St. Matthews’ non-profit umbrella, many businesses thrive: 35 pharmacies, extended care facilities to provide care after hospital discharge, drug and medical device distributors, even a venture capital arm to fund new operations. The financial advantage conferred by “non-profit” status has permitted the hospital to compete with other, for-profit businesses, at a considerable advantage. For this reason, attempts have been made over the years to strip them of what some believe is an unfair advantage; all have failed.

While profits may not fall to the bottom line, money does indeed get paid out to many people along the way. Executives, for instance, pay themselves generous salaries and consulting fees, often from several of the entities in this complex business empire. Physicians are brought in as “consultants” or are awarded “directorships” for hundreds of thousands of dollars per year—Director of Research, Director of Cardiovascular Services, etc. Don’t forget the $3.7 million dollar annual salary paid to the CEO.

Hospitals and doctors have a vested interest in preserving this financial house of cards. They will fiercely battle anyone or anything that threatens the stream of cash. During a recent meeting of important doctors at St. Matthews Hospital, one cardiologist bravely voiced his concern that bypass surgery was performed too freely on too many patients in the hospital. The doctor was promptly and quietly asked to remove himself from the meeting. Several days later, he received a letter announcing his dismissal from the committee.

The silent conspiracy conducted by hospitals and cardiologists serves their own purposes better than the good of the public. Under the guise of good works, hospitals continue to promote strategies which are, for the most part, outdated, inefficient, inaccurate, and expensive. But that’s the rub. Expensive to you and your insurance company means more money for the recipient: your hospital and cardiologist, and the powers that support them. All this occurs while the real solutions that are of benefit to the public continue to be overlooked, hidden in the shadows.

Dr. Robert Connors is the hospital’s most prized cardiologist.

Practically a fixture in the cath lab, he generates more revenues for the hospital than any of his colleagues. Last year alone, he performed over 1500 procedures, bringing in $18 million dollars to the cath lab, $27 million to the hospital. Dr. Connors is very good at what he does: 55-years old, he has been involved in high-tech heart care since the “early days,” 25 years ago, when hospital procedures really took off.

During his career, he has personally performed over 25,000 heart procedures and has built a reputation as a skilled operator of complex coronary procedures. Because of his skills, he enjoys a vigorous flow of referrals for procedures from dozens of primary care physicians. His skill has also earned him referrals from cardiologist colleagues who seek his abilities for difficult cases.

On any day, Dr. Connors typically schedules up to 12 procedures. His entire day is spent in the cath lab, usually from 7 am until 6 pm. He meets many patients for the first time on the catheterization laboratory table as staff shave their groin, preparing for the procedure. Much of the procedure itself is not even performed by Dr. Connors, but by one or another cardiologists-in-training, a “fellow,” or member of the fellowship the hospital proudly maintains as a clinical teaching institution. Nor will Dr. Connors talk to most patients at the close of the procedure. He leaves that to either the fellow or a nurse. Dr. Connors views himself as a procedural specialist, not someone who has to take care of patients. He gave up seeing patients in his office over 10 years ago.

Dr. Connors’ procedural enthusiasm gained him the attention of drug and medical device manufacturers. Because Dr. Connors lectures widely and advises colleagues, his comments can dramatically alter perceptions of the value of a technology. He has, on many occasions, catapulted an unpopular device to most-asked-for among colleagues, bringing millions in revenues to the manufacturer. One particularly lucrative arrangement he made around 10 years ago involved a “closure” device, a $400 single-use plug used to close the access site made during heart catheterizations. By swaying his colleagues at St. Matthews Hospital, 50 orders per day (one per procedure) tallied $20,000 every day, $7.1 million dollars per year for the manufacturer. Although he’d used other devices on the market, the 5,000 shares of stock he was offered encouraged him to issue glowing comments to colleagues on the superiority of this specific brand of closure device. Now over 90% of all catheterizations at St. Matthews conclude with the device manufactured by the company in which Dr. Connors maintains partial ownership.

Negative comments, on the other hand, topple other products when Dr. Connors sees fit to pan them. For this reason, device and drug manufacturers run straight to Dr. Connors to gain his good graces as soon as possible after a product is released into the market. Because the competition is just as likely to do the same, it has often come down to a bidding war, the company providing the most lucrative arrangement most likely to win.

Thus, Dr. Connors proudly boasts of how many times he has flown to Hawaii, Europe, and other exotic locations at industry expense. He also boasts of how, for $100,000 paid to him for a “consulting fee,” he can overturn the choice of products lining hospital shelves. As the hospital’s annual budget for coronary devices will top $84,000,000 this year, device manufacturers regard the sum paid Connors as a profitable investment.

Despite his lofty status in the hospital, Dr. Connors has long expressed a love-hate relationship with St. Matthews. While he enjoys his work and has made a more than comfortable income, he has long felt that the hospital administration didn’t truly appreciate his contributions. Five years ago, he therefore demanded that he be made “Director of Research.” After all, he had hired a nurse to help him coordinate enrollment of patients into several device trials brought to him by medical device manufacturers. When he encountered an initial lukewarm response from hospital administrators, he threatened to take his “business” elsewhere to a competing hospital. St. Matthews’ administrators gave in. They provided him with the title he wanted, along with $100,000 annual “stipend.”

True story, though names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Is Dr. Connors just an “outlier” among colleagues who toe a more conservative line? Or does his brand of commercial enterprise in hospital heart care represent the ideal that they seek, brazenly and ambitiously seeking to expand the procedural solution to heart disease to the exclusion of patient care and real human interaction?

Imagine you contract pneumonia.

You have a fever of 103, you’re coughing up thick, yellow sputum, breathing is getting difficult. You hobble to the doctor, who then fails to prescribe you antibiotics. You get some kind of explanation about unnecessary exposure to antibiotics to avoid creating resistant organisms, yadda yadda. So you make do with some Tylenol®, cough syrup, and resign yourself to a few lousy days of suffering.

Five days into your illness, you’ve not shown up for work, you’re having trouble breathing, and you’re getting delirious. An emergency trip to the hospital follows, where a bronchoscopy is performed (an imaging scope threaded down your airway) and organisms recovered for diagnosis. You’re put on a ventilator through a tube in your throat to support your breathing and treated with intravenous antibiotics. Delayed treatment permits infection to escape into the fluid around your lungs, creating an “empyema,” an extension of the infection that requires insertion of a tube into your chest through an incision to drain the infection. You require feeding through a tube in your nose, since the ventilator prevents you from eating through your mouth. After 10 days, several healing incisions, and a hospital bill totaling $75,000, you’re discharged only to be face eights weeks of rehabilitation because of the extreme toll your illness extracted. Your doctor also advises you that, given the damage incurred to your lungs and airways, you will be prone to more lung infections in the future, and similar situations could recur whenever a cold or virus comes long.

A disease treatable by taking a two week, $20 course of oral antibiotics at home has been converted into a lengthy hospital stay that generated extravagant professional fees, testing, and costly supportive care. You’ve lost several weeks of income. You’re weak and demoralized, frightened that the next flu or virus could mean another trip to the hospital.

Such a scenario would be unimaginable with a common infection like pneumonia, or it would be grounds for filing a malpractice lawsuit. But, as horrific as it sounds in another sphere of healthcare, it is, in effect, analogous to how heart disease is managed in current medical practice.

First, you’re permitted to develop the condition. It may require years of ignoring the telltale signs, it may require your unwitting participation in unhealthy lifestyle choices. Palliative treatments that slow, but don't stop, the progression of disease are prescribed like cholesterol drugs. The process then eventuates in some catastrophe like heart attack or similar unstable heart situation, at which point you no longer have a choice but to submit to major heart procedures. That’s when you receive your heart catheterization, coronary stents, bypass, defibrillators, etc. and you're proudly declared a "success" of medical technology.

Of course, none of these procedural treatments cures the disease, no more than a Band Aid® heals the gash in your leg. The conditions that were present that created your heart disease continue, allowing a progressive disease to worsen. At some point, you will need to return to the hospital for yet more procedures when trouble recurs, which it inevitably does.

A coronary bypass operation costs, on average $85, 653 (AHA 2008 Update; based on 2004 data). That doesn't include the $25,433 cost for the heart catheterization performed by a cardiologist to provide the surgical roadmap of your coronary arteries. If there are any complications of your procedure, then your hospital bill may total a substantially higher figure.

$85, 653 is just the upfront financial pay-off. Over the long run, your life is actually worth far more to the cardiovascular healthcare system because no heart procedure yields a permanent fix. In fact, repeated reliance on the system is the rule.

In fact, over 90% of people who enter the American cardiovascular healthcare system do so through a revolving door of multiple procedures over several years. It is truly a rare person, for instance, who undergoes a coronary bypass operation, never to be seen again the wards of the hospital because he remains healthy and free of catastrophe. A much more familiar scenario is the man or woman who undergoes two or three heart catheterizations, receives 3,4, or 6 stents, followed a few years later by a heart bypass, pacemaker, defibrillator, as well as the tests performed for catastrophe management, such as nuclear stress test, echocardiogram, laboratory blood analysis, and consultation with several specialists. Re-do bypass surgeries--a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th bypass--now comprise 25% of all bypass procedures.

The total revenue opportunity is many-fold higher than the initial 80-some thousand dollars, but instead totals hundreds of thousands of dollars per person.

What motivation can there possibly be to 1) identify coronary disease early, when in its asymptomatic stage, then 2) identify its causes, then 3) correct the causes, and finally 4) shut off the disease? You and I can accomplish this with a few hundred dollars of cost, perhaps a few thousand over many years (to cover costs of fish oil, vitamin D, niacin, and whatever else it takes to stop the expression of the disease). Nobody therefore profits substantially from your prevention effort--except you.

Then what if nobody told you that heart disease could be managed this way? That's what I mean by "disease engineering."

I stumbled on a great interview with cardiothoracic surgeon, Dr. Steven Gundry, on Jimmy Moore's Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Show. (Or, cut and paste: http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/dr-steven-gundry-part-1-episode-179/)

Dr. Gundry has some fun ways of looking at eating and health. I found his comments on the activation of genes (discussed at a very light, non-scientific level) useful. He argues that when humans consume sugar-containing foods, the signal received by the body is that winter is approaching and it's time to build up fat stores in anticipation of the food shortages of cold weather. He finds parallels for this phenomenon in other species. Of course, for humans, winter (in the form of extended calorie deprivation) never comes. In fact, you might argue that, given our excessive reliance on grains, corn, and sugars, that we are, in effect, always in anticipation of a winter that never comes.

I've not read Dr. Gundry's books, but I found this light interview a lot of fun.

Yet another patient came to my office today saying, "My primary doctor said that I should stop taking fish oil. He say's that I don't need it because I take Crestor."

The woman was in tears, confused and frightened over a potential disagreement between her doctors.

Is this true? If someone takes a statin drug, like Crestor, Lipitor, Zocor (simvastatin), pravachol, or lovastatin, they don't need to take anything else because the statin drug is so powerful that it eliminates risk?

No. Not even close to the truth.

First of all, let's accept that virtually the entire body of statin drug literature--hundreds of studies, billions of dollars spent--was paid for by the drug industry. It's no news that studies paid for by the sponsor are likely to favor the sponsor. Imagine Ford sponsored a study of Ford vs. GM cars vs. Toyota, paying $10 million to fund the effort. Guess who is likely to come out on top? "Studies show that Ford makes the best car in America." (Sorry, I don't mean to pick specifically on Ford. It's just a widely-recognized brand.)

So that means that the statin literature likely overestimates the benefit of statin drugs. Even so, it's clear from the hundreds of studies performed that the best we can hope for by taking statin drugs is a reduction of heart attack and death from heart attack of 30-35%--best case. That doesn't sound like elimination of risk to me.

What are the incremental benefits of adding omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil added to statins? The best data originate with the JELIS Trial (Effects of eicosapentaenoic acid on major coronary events in hypercholesterolaemic patients (JELIS): a randomised open-label, blinded endpoint analysis), in which 19,000 Japanese participants (who already have a high omega-3 intake from diet, usually ranging from 1800-3000 mg per day) experienced a 19% reduction (relative reduction) in cardiovascular events.

GISSI Prevenzione demonstrated a 28% reduction in heart attack, 45% reduction in death from heart attack with fish oil.

Omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil also:

--Reduce triglycerides dramatically
--Accelerate after-eating clearance of digestive by-products, i.e., they correct post-prandial abnormalities
--Modify the character (fragmentation potential, structural strength) of plaque
--Raise HDL modestly

If you buy your fish oil from Sam's Club, Costco, or other discounter, a healthy dose of fish oil might cost you $3 per month. Compare that to the $120 per month average cost of a statin agent. Why is there even a discussion over this?

Sadly, the doctor on Main Street, U.S.A, is the unwitting puppet of the pharmaceutical industry. The pretty drug company representative with nice legs and a cute smile promises lunch, dinner and . . who knows what else? Wink. The fifty-something, hairline-receding doctor can't resist. "Of course I'll prescribe your drug!"

Don't kid yourself: The drug industry knows precisely how to manipulate the behaviors of the deliverers of their products.

So, do statin drugs make omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil irrelevant? Absolutely not.

It's all about trying to inch closer and closer--not to reduction--but to elimination of risk for heart disease.

What role do emotions play in HDL cholesterol?

I’ve often observed a peculiar phenomenon: People who come to the office or hospital in the midst of a difficult emotional situation-e.g., stress at home, financial struggles, hospitalization (usually an unhappy occasion)- can show dramatic drops in HDL cholesterol. Not uncommonly, HDL drops 20 or more mg/dl.

Take Agnes’s case. Agnes had to go to the hospital for an elective procedure, one she’d been dreading for months. Previously, Agnes had been proud of the fact that she’d incrased HDL from 42 mg/dl range all the way up to 71 mg/dl. She accomplished this dramatic increase by eliminating wheat and cornstarch from her diet (which helped her lose 24 lbs), taking vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, exercise, 2 oz of dark chocolate per day, and a glass of red wine with dinner.

Although I wouldn’t have bothered checking a cholesterol panel for such a procedure, the hospital had a checklist that included a cholesterol panel regardless of necessity. (Such checklists are common in hospitals, meant to ensure that certain basic issues are not overlooked.)

Agnes’ HDL: 29 mg/dl-a 42 mg drop.

Agnes will recover and her HDL will rebound, but the same effect can occur with other stressful situations, such as death in the family, financial worries, marital stress, etc., as well as physical illness.

Interestingly, the opposite may also hold true: Low HDL may increase risk for depression and stress. A study from Finland of 124 depressed persons, for instance, showed a 240% increased likelihood of depression in those with lower HDL cholesterols.

In other words, there seems to be a curious interdependence between HDL and emotions.

Why? Does it represent the indirect effect of adrenaline, cortisol, or other “stress hormones”? Do factors that relate to low HDL, such as unhealthy diet full of carbohydrates and physical inactivity, also tend to cultivate depression?

It certainly seems to be a chicken-egg situation, with one often leading to the other.

Moral of the story: Maintaining a sense of optimism and engaging in activities that bring you satisfaction and enjoyment can help raise HDL, as can strategies such as those followed by Agnes. Avoiding unnecessarily stressful situations can help. HDL is important, since higher levels are associated with much reduced risk for heart disease . . . and perhaps depression.

A tan does not equal vitamin D

Confessions of a former drug company patsy

Planned obsolence

Melatonin for high blood pressure?

The forces that shape heatlh care

Lipoprotein(a): Surprising Poll Results

Are endogenous nutritional supplements better?

Vitamin D Newsletter reprinted

Biggest bang for your nutritional buck

Can skinny be fat?

Quieting the insulin storm

Scare tactics

Self-Directed Testing

Self-testing

Increasing sales, growing the business

Top Doctor

Disease Engineering

Dr. Steven Gundry on The Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Show

Does fish oil ADD to statin therapy?

HDL: “H” is for “happy”