Beating the Heart Association diet is child's play

21. June 2009 William Davis (19)


In response to the Heart Scan Blog post, Post-Traumatic Grain Disorder, Anne commented:


While on the American Heart Association diet my lipids peaked in 2003. I even tried the Ornish diet for a short time, but found it impossible.

Total Cholesterol: 201
Triglycerides: 263
HDL: 62
LDL: 86

After I stopped eating gluten (I am very sensitive), my lipid panel improved slightly. This past year I started eating to keep my blood sugar under control by eliminating sugars and other grains. Now this is my most recent lab:

Total Cholesterol: 162
Triglycerides: 80
HDL: 71
LDL: 75


Isn't that great? This is precisely what I see in practice: Elimination of wheat and sugars yields dramatic effects on basic lipids, especially reductions in triglycerides of up to several hundred milligrams, increased HDL, reduced LDL.

Beneath the surface, the effects are even more dramatic: reductions or elimination of small LDL particles, reduction or elimination of triglyceride-containing lipoproteins, elimination of the marker for abnormal post-prandial (after-eating) lipoproteins, IDL, reduced c-reactive protein. Add weight loss from abdominal fat stores and reduced blood pressure.

In fact, I would go so far as to speculate that, if the entire nation were to follow Anne's lead and eliminate wheat and sugars, "need" for 30% of all prescription medications would disappear. The incidence of diabetes would be slashed, the U.S. would no longer lead the world in obesity.

Anne and I are not the first to make this observation. It has also been made in several studies, such as:

The Duke University study of low-carbohydrate diets in type II diabetics. In this study, 50% of low-carb participants became non-diabetic: They were cured.

One of the many studies conducted by University of Connecticut's Dr. Jeff Volek, demonstrating dramatic improvement in glucose, insulin (reduced 50%) and insulin responses, and lipids.

Dr. Ron Krauss' early studies that hinted at this effect, even though the "high-fat" diet wasn't really low-carbohydrate.

If wheat and sugar elimination has been shown to achieve all these fabulous benefits, why hasn't the American Heart Association spoken in favor of this dietary approach and other- low-carbohydrate diets ? Why does the American Heart Association maintain its "Check-Mark" stamp of approval on Cocoa Puffs and Count Chocula cereals?

Victim of Post-Traumatic Grain Disorder

20. June 2009 William Davis (14)
Heart Scan Blog reader, Mike, shared his story with me. He was kind enough to allow me to reprint it here (edited slightly for brevity).



Dr. Davis,

I was much intrigued to stumble onto your blog. Heart disease, nutrition, and wellness are critically important to me, because I’m a type 2 diabetic. I’m 53 and was diagnosed as diabetic about 5 years ago, though I suspect I was either diabetic or pre-diabetic 5 years before that. Even in a metropolitan area it's next-to-impossible to find doctors sympathetic to any approach beyond the standard get-the-A1c-below 6.5, get LDL <100, get your weight and blood pressure normal, and take metformin and statins.

I’m about 5’10-and-a-half and when I was young I had to stuff myself to keep weight on; it was an effort to get to 150 pounds, and as a young man, 165 was the holy grail for me. I always felt I’d look better with an extra 10-15 pounds.
I ate whatever I wanted, mostly junk, I guess, in my younger years.

When I hit about age 35, I put on 30 pounds seemingly overnight. As I moved toward middle age I became concerned with the issue of heart health, and around that time Dr. Ornish came out with his stuff. I was impressed that he’d done a
study that supposedly showed measurable decrease in atherosclerotic plaque, and had published the results of his research in peer-reviewed journals. It looked to me as though he had the evidence; who could argue with that? I tried his plan on and off, but as so many people note, an almost-vegan diet is really tough. It was for me, and I could never do it for any length of time. But given that the “evidence” said that I should, I kept trying, and kept beating up on myself when I failed. And I kept gaining weight. I got to almost 200 pounds by the time I was 40 and have a strong suspicion that that’s what caused my blood sugar to go awry, but my doctor at the time never checked my blood sugar, and as a relatively young and healthy man, I never went in very often.

I’ve had bouts of PSVT [paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia, a rapid heart rhythm] every now and again since I was 12 or so. I used to convert the rhythm with Valsalva, but as I moved into my forties, occasionally my blood pressure would be elevated and it made me nervous to do the procedure because it was my understanding that it spikes your blood pressure when you do it. So I began going to the ER to have the rhythm converted, which they do quite easily with adenosine. On one of my infrequent runs to the ER to get a bout of PSVT converted, they discovered my blood glucose was 500 mg/dL, and I’d never experienced any symptoms! They put me in the hospital and gave me a shot of insulin, got it town to 80 mg/dL easily,
diagnosed me as diabetic, and put me on 500 mg. metformin a day.

I was able to get my A1c down to 7, then down to 6.6, and about that time I read a number of Dr. Agatston’s books, and began following the diet, and pretty quickly got my A1c down to 6.2, and my weight down, easily, to 158. That was fine with my doctor; he acted as though I was in good shape with those numbers. Soon I ran into Dr. Bernstein’s material, and came face to face with a body of research that suggested I needed to get the A1c down to below 5! That was both discouraging and inspiring, and frankly it’s been difficult for me to eat as lo-carb as I appear to need to, so I swing back and forth between 6.2 and 6.6. I know I need to work harder, be more diligent in my carb control, and I see with my meter that if I eat low-carb I have great postprandial and fasting blood sugars, but since I don’t particularly get any support or encouragement from
either my doctor or my wife for being so “radical,” it’s hard to pass the carbs by.

One thing that always confused me was that though I saw on my meter that BG [blood glucose] readings were better with a lo-carb diet, and though I saw the preliminary research suggesting that lo-carb could be beneficial in controlling CVD, I didn’t understand why Ornish had peer-reviewed research demonstrating reversal of atherosclerosis on a very-lowfat diet. How could two opposing approaches both help? I wondered if it were possible that one diet is good for diabetes, and the
other good for heart health. That would mean diabetics are screwed, because they always seem to end up with heart disease.

From time to time I’d look for material that explained this seeming contradiction. I was determined to try to stay lo-carb, simply because I saw how much better my blood sugars are when I eat lo-carb; but it’s hard in the face of this or that website that tells you about all the dangers of a lo-carb diet and that touts the lo-fat approach. That tends to be the conventional wisdom anyway.

Finally in one of those searches I came across your material, and saw you offer what was at last an explanation of what Ornish had discovered--it wasn’t a reversal of atherosclerotic plaques he was seeing; it was that his diet was improving endothelial dysfunction in people who had had high fat intakes.

Odd as it may seem to you, that little factlet has been enough to allow me to discard entirely the lingering ghost of a suspicion that I ought to be eating very-lowfat. In fact, I was very excited to see your claim that your approach can reverse atherosclerotic plaque.

It would be nice to find a doctor who’d be supportive of your approach. My doctor isn’t much interested in diet or
nutrition. He just wants my weight in the acceptable range, my blood pressure good, and my LDL 100 or below (which I know isn’t low enough). He’s not particularly interested in getting a detailed lipid report. I hope I can talk him into ordering one so that it’s more likely I can get it covered by my insurance.

I very much appreciated the links you gave to Jenny’s diabetes websites, and I’ve resolved to get even better control of my BG by being more diligent with my diet. I’m planning on joining your site, reading your book, and following your advice. I just have this sort of deflating feeling that it would have been better if I’d stumbled upon this before I had diabetes. Still, it’s nice to have a site that offers to laypeople the best knowledge available concerning how to take care of their heart.



Mike is yet another "victim" of the "eat healthy whole grains" national insanity, the Post-Traumatic Grain Disorder, or PTGD. The low-fat dietary mistake has left many victims in its wake, having to deal with the aftermath of corrupt high-carbohydrate diets: diabetes, heart disease, and obesity.

We should all hope and pray that "low-fat, eat healthy whole grains" goes the way of Detroit gas guzzlers and sub-prime mortgages.

Drug industry "Deep Throat"

18. June 2009 William Davis (16)
A Heart Scan Blog reader brought the following letter from a former pharmaceutical sales representative to congress to my attention.

Interesting excerpts:

As a former drug representative for Eli Lilly, I spent 20 months increasing the market share of my company’s drugs. I was recruited fresh from college with an eager desire to employ my degree in molecular biology and biochemistry. Shortly after my hiring, it became clearly apparent that a drug sale had much more to do with establishing personal relationships than it did with understanding the latest science. However, any doubts I held regarding the effectiveness of such methods were dispelled by the results of my persuasiveness and the financial rewards I received for my efforts. The latter also helped me rationalize the many ethically dubious situations I routinely encountered in my work. Upon my departure from the industry, I began working for the public’s health. Seven years later, as a result of my experiences and education I am more convinced than ever that the goals of the pharmaceutical industry often stand in direct conflict with the practice of ethical and responsible medicine. Nothing in my recent research causes me to believe that my experiences were anything but typical of the training and practice of the majority of drug reps plying their trade today.


“There’s a big bucket of money sitting in every [doctor’s] office.” – Michael Zubillaga, Astra Zeneca Regional Sales Director, Oncology


The majority of drug reps entering the work force today are young and attractive. The ranks of reps are replete with sexual icons: former cheerleaders, ex-military, models, athletes. Of course, as a sales job, the reps must be eloquent and convincing. Depending on the population, certain ethnicities are preferred either to make the rep distinct among other reps or to provide them with a cultural advantage in connecting with their clients. Noticeably lacking among most new reps is any significant scientific understanding. My personal case illustrates this point rather vividly: In my training class for Eli Lilly's elite neuroscience division, selling two products that constituted over 50% of the company's profits at the time, none of my 21 classmates nor our two trainers had any college level scientific education. In fact, that first day of training, I taught my class and my instructors the very basic but crucial process by which two nerve cells communicate with one another. It is very likely that the majority of my class couldn't explain the difference between a neuron and a neutron prior to sales school. While it's certainly a bonus to have a scientifically educated representative, it is far from a primary recruitment criterion. Youth is a much higher criterion for the sales position.

Sales representative trainers are almost always veteran sales representatives and consequently, much of the training they offer is implicit in the anecdotes they give. This informal training parallels the standard training offered by the industry and in many ways compliments it. It is tacitly accepted by management and perceived as the "real" training by many veteran sale representatives. Among the more dubious "unofficial" lessons a new rep learns are: how to manipulate an expense report to exceed the spending limit for important clients, how to use free samples to leverage sales, how to use friendship to foster an implied "quid pro quo" relationship, the importance of sexual tension, and how to maneuver yourself to becoming a necessity to an office or clinic.

The most troubling aspect of pharmaceutical sales is systematic befriending of our clients. In addition to the psychological profiling mentioned above, drug reps are taught to constantly be on the lookout for personal effects that will help us connect to our doctors. When entering an office for the first time, we nonchalantly survey it for clues to ingratiate ourselves with our client. Similarly, conversations are intentionally steered into the realm of personal details such as religion, family, or hobbies to acquire similar information. As a matter of training, we collect this data subtly. In the course of a conversation with clients, we may glean facts about their prescribing preferences, the dates of their children’s birthdays, where they were born, or what music they enjoy. Training encourages us to commit these details to memory just long enough to return to our cars and instantly type up a “call report” listing the details of our conversation. On a daily basis, we connect our computers to a central database that uploads the information we’ve acquired, allowing us to share it with our partner drug reps and company marketers. Subsequently, drug reps interweave pieces of conversation specifically tailored to appeal to their client drawn from personal information that wasn’t necessarily shared with them. For example, Dr. Jones will be nothing but grateful when I supply him with a cake celebrating his children’s birthday when, in fact, he told my partner (and not me) the birthdates several months prior in a personal conversation.


The writer's comments ring true: The relentless attention-grab of sales representatives, using clever tactics that include access to detailed records of physician prescribing habits, big smiles and eye-winking, are detailed perfectly.

There's nothing wrong with a business doing its job by marketing its products and services. What is so wrong about this picture is that one side is so well-equipped, heavily funded, with access to extraordinary resources that the other side (physicians) don't have. And the physicians aren't the victims--YOU are.

A middle-aged, receding hairline physician, faced with a 28-year old attractive woman asking all manner of ingratiating questions but knowing full well what she is doing, having strategized for weeks on how to manipulate the behavior of her "mark," is helpless.

Like the mortgage-backed security crisis, we've reached another phenomenon of crisis proportions. Direct-to-consumer drug advertising, drugs for non-conditions and well people, pinpoint marketing of drugs to physicians--it's all gone too far.

Personally, drug representatives are not welcome in my office. This generally prompts puzzled, followed by angry, looks from the representatives, often traveling with a district supervisor hoping to help polish their pitch. If patients didn't request free samples, the reps would not step foot in the office.

Triglyceride Buster-Update

17. June 2009 William Davis (8)
In the last Heart Scan Blog post, I described Daniel's experience reducing his triglycerides from 3100 mg/dl to around 1100 mg/dl with use of omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, along with modifications in his diet. This was accomplished in the space of around two weeks.

An update: Daniel has continued another 10 days on his fish oil, along with elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars.

Repeat triglyceride: 202 mg/dl. That's 93.5% reduction in the space of three weeks--no drugs involved.

Daniel really did nothing extraordinary. He simply followed the simple advice I provided to take a moderate dose of EPA+DHA from over-the-counter fish oil supplements, along with elimination of the foods that are extravagant triggers of triglycerides.

He's got just a little further to go to achieve the biologically ideal level of less than 60 mg/dl. You can see that it is not really that difficult--provided someone didn't load you down with nonsense about "cutting your fat," or statin or fibrate drugs.

Triglyceride buster

16. June 2009 William Davis (24)
Two weeks ago, Daniel started with a triglyceride level of 3100 mg/dl, a dangerous level that had potential to damage his pancreas. The inflammatory injury incurred could leave him with type I diabetes and inability to digest foods, since the insulin-producing capacity and the enzyme producing capacity of the pancreas are lost.

Daniel added 3600 mg of omega-3s per day. Within 10 days, his triglycerides dropped nearly 2000 mg to just over 1100 mg/dl--still too high, but an incredible start.

The power of omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil to reduce triglycerides is illustrated most graphically by people with a condition called "familial hypertriglyceridemia" that is responsible for triglyceride levels of 500, 1000, even several thousand milligrams. That's what Daniel has. Given appropriate doses of omega-3s, triglycerides drop hundreds, even thousands, of milligrams.

No question: Omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil are the best tool available for reduction of triglycerides. The effect is dose-dependent, i.e., the more you take, the greater the triglyceride reduction.

How omega-3s exerts this effect is unclear, though there is evidence to suggest that omega-3s suppress several nuclear receptors involved in triglyceride (VLDL) production and increase the expression or activity of the enzyme lipoprotein lipase, an enzyme that clears triglycerides from the blood.

I am continually surprised at the number of people with high triglycerides who are still treated with a fibrate drug, like Tricor, or a statin drug, when fish oil--widely available, essentially free of side-effects, with a proven cardiovascular risk-reducing track record--should clearly be the first choice by a long stretch.

Among its many benefits, omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil also:

Reduce matrix metalloproteinases (MMP)--Two fractions of MMPs, MMP-2 and MMP-9, are inflammatory enzymes present in atherosclerotic plaque that are suspected to trigger plaque "rupture." Omega-3s have been shown to reduce both forms of MMP.

Block uptake of lipids in the artery wall--Suggested by a study in mice.

Modify postprandial responses--In the first few hours after eating (the "postprandial" period), a flood of digestive byproducts of a meal are present in the bloodstream. While research exploring postprandial effects is still in its infancy, it is clear that omega-3 fatty acids have the capacity to favorably modify postprandial patterns. One common surrogate measure for postprandial abnormalities is intermediate-density lipoprotein, or IDL, that we obtain in fasting blood through lipoprotein panels like NMR and VAP. With sufficient omega-3s alone, IDL is completely eliminated.

Unfortunately, most of my colleagues, if they even think to use omega-3s, choose to use the prescription form, Lovaza. Indeed, several representatives from AstraZeneca, the pharmaceutical outfit now distributing this miserably overpriced product, frequently barge their way into my office poking fun at our use of nutritional supplements instead of the prescription Lovaza. "But insurance covers it in most cases!" they plead. "And your patients will know that they're getting the real product, not some fake. And they'll have to take fewer capsules!"

I never use Lovaza to reduce triglycerides, even in familial hypertriglyceridemia--the FDA-approved indication for Lovaza--and have not yet seen any failures, only successes.

Newsweek, Time, and other fronts for the drug industry

15. June 2009 William Davis (0)
I used to believe that conventional print media--newspapers, magazines--were unbiased, untouchable flames of truth. Perhaps there was a time when this was true, when the young reporter, eager to change the world, uncovered the story that righted some huge wrong.

Those days are drawing to a close.

Today, the once powerful print media are collapsing due to the competition of the cheaper, broader reach of the internet.

Jogging does NOT cause heart disease

14. June 2009 William Davis (20)

Periodically, I'll come across a knuckleheaded report like this one from Minneapolis:

Marathon Man’s Heart Damaged by Running?


Of course, the obligatory story about how a cardiologist came to the rescue and "saved his life" with a stent follows. In other words, a stent purportedly saved the life of this vigorous man with no symptoms and high capacity for exercise.

Does vigorous exercise, whether it's marathon running, long-distance biking, or triathlons, cause coronary disease? Should all vigorous athletes run to their doctor to see if they, too, need their lives to be "saved."

Let me tell you what's really going on here. People with the genetic pattern lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), tend to be slender, intelligent and athletic. For genetic reasons, these people gravitate towards endurance sports like long-distance running. Lp(a) is a high-risk factor for coronary disease. It is the abnormality present in the majority of slender, healthy people who are shocked when they receive a high heart scan score or have a heart attack or receive a stent. (I call Lp(a) "the most aggressive known coronary risk factor that nobody's heard about.")

The association between endurance exercise and heart disease is just that: an association. It does not mean that exercise is causal. Having seen coronary plaque detected with heart scans in many runners, virtually all of whom demonstrated increased Lp(a), I believe that Lp(a) is causal.

Unfortunately, the man in the Minneapolis story, now that his life is "saved," will likely be advised to take a statin drug and follow a low-fat diet . . . you know, the diet that increases Lp(a).

Warning: Your pharmacist may be hazardous to your health

12. June 2009 William Davis (24)
Pharmacists can be very helpful resources when it comes to questions about prescription drugs.

The operant word here is drugs.

What they are most definitely not expert on are nutritional supplements. In fact, a day doesn't pass by without having to dispell one falsehood or another conveyed to a patient about a nutritional supplement by a pharmacist.

Among the more common falsehoods told to patients by pharmacists:

"You have to take Niaspan. Sloniacin doesn't work."

Patent nonsense. A few years back, I was the largest prescriber of Niaspan in Wisconsin. Although I am embarassed to admit it, I also spoke for the company, educating fellow physicians on the value of niacin for correction of lipid disorders.

Then I shifted to Sloniacin due to cost--it costs 1/20th the cost of prescription Niaspan. I examined the pharmacokinetic data (pattern of release in the body), the published literature (e.g., the famous HATS Trial), and have used Sloniacin over 1000 times in patients. In my experience, there is no difference: no difference in efficacy, no difference in safety, no difference in side-effects. There is a BIG difference in price.

Unfortunately, most pharmacists get their information on niacin from the Niaspan representative.


"You shouldn't be taking vitamin D supplements. I have prescription vitamin D here."

What the pharmacist means is that you should replace your vitamin D3, or cholecalciferol--the form recognized as vitamin D by the human body--with the plant form of vitamin D, vitamin D2 or ergocalciferol.

Since when is a plant form of a hormone (vitamin D is a potent hormone, not a vitamin; it was misnamed) better than the human form?

I've previously talked about this issue in a blog post called Vitamin D for the pharmaceutically challenged.

The notion that D2 is somehow superior to the real thing, D3, is absurd. I use D3 only in my practice and have checked blood levels thousands of times. As long as the D3 comes as a gelcap, drops, or powder in a capsule, it works great, yielding predictable and substantial increases in blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D. If it comes as prescription D2 (or over-the-counter D2), I have seen many failures: no increase in blood levels of vitamin D or meager increases.

Prescription status is no guarantee of effectiveness.


"Why do you need iodine? You already get enough from food."

The NHANES data over the last 25 years argue otherwise: Iodine deficiency is growing, particularly as people are avoiding iodized salt and the iodine content of processed foods is diminishing. The explosion in goiters in my office also suggest this is no longer a settled issue.

On the positive side, it is exceptionally easy to remedy with an inexpensive iodine supplement. That is, until the pharmacist intervenes and injects his bit of nutritional mis-information.


I'm not bashing pharmacists. In fact, Track Your Plaque's own Dr. BG has a pharmacy background, and she is an absolute genius with nutritonal supplements. But she is a rare exception to the rule: Most pharmacists know virtually nothing about nutritional supplements. You might as well ask your hairdresser.

"Healthy" people are the most iodine deficient

5. June 2009 William Davis (27)
Ironically, the healthiest people are the most likely to be deficient in iodine.

Why?

Healthy people tend to:

--Avoid iodized salt because of public health advice to limit sodium
--Use sea salt to obtain minerals like magnesium--but sea salt contains little iodine
--Limit meat--Carnivores obtain more iodine than vegetarians or vegans. In one study, up to 80% of vegans were iodine-deficient (Krajcovicova-Kudlackova M et al 2003).
--Exercise--Substantial amounts of iodine are lost through sweating. In a study of high school soccer players, 38.5% were severely iodine deficient, compared to 2% of sedentary students (Mao IF et al 2001).


That is indeed what I am seeing in my office, as well: The healthiest, most attentive to healthy eating, and most physically active are the ones showing up with small goiters (enlarged thyroid glands) and increased TSH and low free T4 levels.

Why am I checking thyroid and talking about iodine? Because even the smallest degree of thyroid dysfunction can double, triple, or quadruple your risk for cardiovascular events. See the posts Is normal TSH too high? and Thyroid perspective update.

What kind of iodine do you take?

4. June 2009 William Davis (21)
The results of the latest Heart Scan Blog poll are in.

204 respondents answered the question:


Do you take an iodine supplement?

The responses:

Yes, I take Iodoral, Lugol's, or SSKI
26 (12%)

Yes, I take potassium or sodium iodide
19 (9%)

Yes, I take kelp tablets or powder
64 (31%)

No, I rely on generous use of iodized salt
23 (11%)

No, I don't supplement iodine at all
66 (32%)

Isn't iodine something you put on cuts and scratches?
6 (2%)


I am heartened by the number of respondents taking iodine in some form. After all, iodine is an essential trace mineral. Without it and health suffers, often dramatically.

However, I am concerned by the percentage of people who don't supplement iodine at all: 32%. Interestingly, this is approximately the proportion of people who come to my office who also do not supplement iodine who are now showing goiters, or enlarged thyroid glands due to iodine deficiency. Goiters lead to hypothyroidism (low thyroid hormone levels), followed by hyperactive nodules, not to mention undesirable effects like weight gain, fatigue, hair loss, constipation, intolerance to cold, higher LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, and heart disease.

11% of respondents report using lots of iodized salt. This may or may not be sufficient to provide enough iodine to prevent goiter and allow normal thyroid function. The success of this strategy depends to a great extent on how often salt is purchased. Salt that sits on the shelf for more than a month is devoid of iodine, given iodine's volatility.

I am also favorably impressed by the number of people who take "serious" iodine supplements like Lugol's solution, Iodoral, or SSKI. Of course, people who read The Heart Scan Blog tend to be an unusually informed, healthy population. The 12% of people in the poll who take these forms of iodine does clearly not mean that 12% of the general population also takes them. But 12% is more than I would have predicted.

On the Track Your Plaque website, we are awaiting an interview with iodine expert, Dr. Lyn Patrick. I'm hoping for some juicy insights.
All posts by william-davis

Why healthy can make us fat

13. September 2007 William Davis (0)

Brian Wansink, author of Mindless Eating: Why we eat more than we think (see yesterday's Heart Scan Blog post), also has a Blog. Despite the bland advice offered on much of the Prevention Magazine and website, Wansink's Food Think Blog is a winner.

In a recent post, Wansink quotes a report from Science Daily that described a study he recently published in the Journal of Consumer Research. Wansink's study describes how just applying the label "healthy" to fast food choices increased consumers' calorie intake:


"When we see a fast-food restaurant like Subway advertising its low-calorie sandwiches, we think, 'It's OK: I can eat a sandwich there and then have a high-calorie dessert,' when, in fact, some Subway sandwiches contain more calories than a Big Mac."

In one study, Chandon and Wansink had consumers guess how many calories are in sandwiches from two restaurants. They estimated that sandwiches contain 35% fewer calories when they come from restaurants claiming to be healthy than when they are from restaurants not making this claim.

The result of this calorie underestimation? Consumers then chose beverages, side dishes, and desserts containing up to 131% more calories when the main course was positioned as "healthy" compared to when it was not--even though, in the study, the "healthy" main course already contained 50% more calories than the "unhealthy" one.

"These studies help explain why the success of fast-food restaurants serving lower-calorie foods has not led to the expected reduction in total calorie intake and in obesity rates," the authors write.

Interesting. In fact, I've had many patients say that they eat at Subway or similar chains and choose the "healthy" options. "That's got to be better than a cheeseburger and fries!" Perhaps not. (Of course, you can't leave Subway or other fast food operation feasting on wheat products.)

Wansink can be counted on for some truly fascinating observations into many behaviors that are subconscious but explain at least part of the reason why we're so fat. Though his Blog has a relatively short history of posts, there's lots of great commentary.

Pierre Chandon and Brian Wansink. "The Biasing Health Halos of Fast Food Restaurant Health Claims: Lower Calorie Estimates and Higher Side-Dish Consumption Intentions" Journal of Consumer Research, October 2007.

Outsmarting the enemy

12. September 2007 William Davis (2)

"Everyone--every single one of us--eats how much we eat largely because of what's around us. We overeat not because of hunger but because of family and friends, packages and plates, names and numbers, labels and lights, colors and candles, shapes and smells, distractions and distances, cupboards and containers. This list is almost as endless as it's invisible.

Invisible?

Most of us are blissfully unaware of what influences how much we eat . . . We all think we're too smart to be tricked by packages, lighting, or plates. We might acknowledge that others could be tricked, but not us. That is what makes mindless eating so dangerous. We are almost never aware that it is happening to us."


So opens Brian Wansink's book, Mindless Eating: Why we eat more than we think.

Wansink studies consumer behavior at Cornell University. He's the guy who scrutinizes in excruciating detail why we eat what we do, what factors determine what we eat like food color and smell, the company we keep, product packaging. He works without food industry funding, though there are plenty of researchers who do this sort of research funded by the likes of Kraft, Nabisco, and Kellogg's.

His book is packed full of the conclusions he and his team have come to over the years studying our buying and eating habits. While this information could (and is) be easily used by the food industry to coerce us to eat more and more, understanding many of the concepts Wansink talks about can also open your eyes to their clever tactics.

He especially details how our internal satiety signals fail us when external cues are present that easily trip us up. He talks about one experiment he ran in which soup bowls were rigged with concealed rubber tubes in the bottom that continually replenished the soup as the person consumed it. Thus, with the bowl continually refilled, the eater had no idea how much he or she had consumed. When the quantity of soup eaten from the endless bowl was compared to people eating from standard bowls, there was as much as a three-fold increase in the quantity and calories eaten.

Just be aware that, while Wansink is an expert in consumer eating behavior, he is not necessarily an expert in nutrition. Just as a card shark can show you lots of clever tricks to hoodwink your opponent, he might not be the best person to teach you how to play bridge.

For a great hint at some of the interesting and all-too-human observations Wansink makes, the online Prevention Magazine posted a brief video:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1155399889/bclid1171884988/bctid1113465050

We might not be able to stop Big Food from selling garbage foods, but we can at least be armed with insight into how we are subconsciously coerced into eating more.

Test Of Scanner Saves A Doctor's Life

11. September 2007 William Davis (5)

















Read the story online at http://www.courant.com/news/health/hc-luckydoc.artsep10,0,7572510.story?coll=hc_features_promo

I personally hate these stories, the ones that turn heart scans into drama by describing how someone had a heart scan, then turned out to have so much coronary plaque that they had to have bypass surgery.

But I point this one out because the story is related in an interesting way. It highlights the utter ignorance that operates in heart disease detection.

The story highlights how a 50-year-old, 5 ft 8, 150 lb slender, exercising neurologist underwent a CT coronary angiogram in a newly installed device in a Hartford, Connecticut hospital (not a heart scan) that detected entirely unsuspected severe and diffuse coronary disease. You know the rest: abnormal stress test, heart catheterization, bypass surgery of the hapless doctor-now-patient, followed by grateful patient saying things like "This machine saved my life."

It probably is true. You've seen these stories before. I've witnessed these sorts of headline-makers for the past decade. I remain surprised that it still happens.

The doctor is not some ignorant, uninformed man who can't even fill out his income tax forms. Yet how does a man like this walk around with life-threatening disease and not know it? Why does it still make headlines?

Anyway, despite all my jawing about heart scans and early heart disease detection, many physicians and the public remain in the stone age of heart disease. Even though this neurologist's story made headlines, the many other people who 1) identified their heart disease earlier with a simple heart scan, then 2) took action to put a stop to it, do not make headlines. But that's the way to go.

Why isn't the rest of the story being told? Why was this man's heart disease uncovered only in its late phases? Hartford, Connecticut is not some backwater. I've been there. It's a major city with large hospitals and a University Medical Center. But a professional with presumed knowledge of health and his doctor(s) allowed this to happen?

In other words, this is not a story of success, but of failure--failure to identify coronary disease years earlier when preventive action would have prevented bypass. But that's not such a compelling headline, is it?

As an aside, I'll bet you that this man has lipoprotein(a), a severe small LDL pattern, and severe deficiency of vitamin D. Correct these and it's unlikely he'll need bypass again. But that's kind of boring, isn't it?

The great food industry deception

8. September 2007 William Davis (1)
I'd forgotten what a powerful report Peter Jennings and ABC News produced about the enormous deception perpetrated by the food industry and its effects on health until Dr. Joe Mercola posted the YouTube clips from the report on Mercola.com.

(This is not meant to be an endorsement of everything Dr. Mercola has to say. He says lots of things; I agree with only a fraction of it. But this is a gem.)

Although made in 2004, the report remains every bit as relevant today as it was then. It concerns me deeply that, despite reports like this being broadcast to Americans, the obesity epidemic continues unabated. In fact, it's worse just in the short three years since then.

Be aware of what the food industry is up to. They intensively market high profit margin foods to us--and especially our children--to increase sales. As Jennings points out, the U.S. government (USDA) is, for a variety of reasons both good and bad, complicit with this massive deception. While many media reports continue to focus on lack of exercise as the root cause for the obesity epidemic, it is really the active and purposeful selling of processed junk foods to Americans that is principally to blame.

By the way, how many of these foods proudly boast the American Heart Association Check Mark of approval?



Part 1





Part 2




Part 3




Part 4




Part 5

Dr. Joseph Prendergast and l-arginine

7. September 2007 William Davis (21)
In response to a discussion started by Track Your Plaque Member, Rich, on the Member Forum, I tracked down Dr. Joseph Prendergast, who had posted a video on his unique experiences, both personal and professional, with l-arginine.

Dr. Prendergast describes some of this in a brief webcast. Here, I quote Rich:

“This 90-second video by a Palo Alto physician (internal/endocrine, diabetes specialist) will totally blow your mind.

http://enews.endocrinemetabolic.com/2007/08/16-12-years.html

You will see in the link below that he reversed his personal atherosclerotic disease, diagnosed in abdominal aorta at age 37—completely reversed. He's now much older."

http://www.endocrinemetabolic.com/about/press/larginine.pdf



I contacted Dr. Prendergast to find out more.

Dr. Joseph Predergast is founder of the Endocrine Metabolic Medical Center in Palo Alto, California, focused on providing care for people with diabetes. In addition to the website, he provides Blogs and newsletters, though most of his conversation is about diabetes issues. Dr. Predergast’s website is located at http://www.endocrinemetabolic.com.

I asked Dr. Prendergast several questions about his l-arginine experience. His brief answers are below.



1) What dose of l-arginine have you employed in your patients and why this dose?

The dose is 3 - 6 grams as suggested by the Stanford Cardiovascular Research Department Chairman John Cooke. http://med.stanford.edu/profiles/John_Cooke/

2) I gather that you have preference for specific preparations of l-arginine. Can you say why some preparations seem superior to others in your experience?

I started with pharmaceutical l-arginine from the pharmacy. I gradually began to add components that would augment the power of the l-arginine and have gone through 12–15 different products. I have completely reversed my own very severe atherosclerosis discovered at age 37 and there has been less than 0.05% cardiovascular disease in my endocrine practice in almost 17 years. Both my exams were evaluated with CT technology. I am now using ProArgi9 Plus that includes several anti-aging components and will likely never switch. http://www.synergyworldwide.com/synergycorp/home.aspx

3) Are you employing any other unique practices in your patients to reduce cardiovascular events?

Withdrawing as many prescription drugs as possible.




Interesting. Of course, I also advocate l-arginine as a facilitator of atherosclerotic plaque regression, though I am not as ebullient about its use as Dr. Prendergast.

Instead, I see l-arginine as a method that yields forced normalization of “endothelial dysfunction,” the abnormal constriction and other effects that develop when abnormal lipoproteins and unhealthy food by-products are present in the circulation. Endothelial dysfunction is an inevitable accompaniment of plaque.

However, unlike Dr. Predergast’s experience, despite our use of doses higher than he uses, I have never seen plaque regression just using l-arginine alone. Nonetheless, it’s good to hear that others are seeing at least some positive effects.

By the way, we have also had some positive posts on our Forum about the ProArgi9 product he uses.

Dr. Dwight Lundell on omega-3s and CLA

7. September 2007 William Davis (15)


An interview with Dr. Dwight Lundell, cardiac surgeon and author of the new book, "The Cure for Heart Disease."


Dr. Lundell comes to us with a unique pedigree. He is a cardiothoracic surgeon practicing in the Phoenix, Arizona, area. Despite having performed thousands of coronary bypass operations, including numerous "off-pump" procedures earning him a place in the Beating Heart Hall of Fame and a listing in Phoenix Magazine’s Top Doctors for 10 years, more recently Dr. Lundell has turned his attentions away from traditional surgical treatment and towards prevention of heart disease and.

In particular, Dr. Lundell is a vocal advocate for omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil and conjugated linoleic acid, or CLA.

When I heard about Dr. Lundell’s unique perspectives, I asked him if he’d like to tell us a little more about his ideas. Here follows a brief interview with Dr. Lundell.



You’re a vocal advocate of the role of omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil in heart disease prevention. Can you tell us how you use it?

In my book, I recommend 3 g of fish oil daily. This would normally yield about 1000 mg of EPA and DHA depending on the concentration of the supplement. This is approximately the dose that reduced sudden cardiac death by 50%, and all cause death, by 25% in patients with previous heart attack.

In patients with signs of chronic inflammation such as heart disease, obesity, arthritis, metabolic syndrome or depression or in those patients with elevation of CRP, I would recommend higher doses, 2000 to 3000 mg per day of EPA and DHA. The FDA has approved up to 3400 mg for treating patients with severely elevated triglycerides.

I personally take a 2000 mg EPA and DHA per day because I have calcium in my coronary arteries.




Of course, in the Track Your Plaque program we track coronary calcium scores. Do you track any measures of atherosclerosis in your patients to chart progression or regression?

Carotid ultrasound with measurement of IMT [intimal-medial thickness] has been shown to be a good surrogate marker for coronary disease, as has vascular reactivity in the arm. CT scanning with calcium scoring is a direct marker of coronary disease. CT does not differentiate between stable or unstable plaque but there is no good noninvasive way of doing this.

The dramatic value of CT scan calcium scoring is to demonstrate to people that they actually do have coronary disease and to motivate them to make the necessary lifestyle and nutritional changes to reduce it. CT scan with calcium scoring is a direct way to measure the progression or regression of coronary artery disease. If there is a choice between a direct measurement and indirect measurement, always choose the direct method.

Every patient treated with CLA in my clinic, experienced significant reductions in C-reactive protein. These patients were also on a weight-loss program, so I can't prove whether it was the CLA or the weight-loss that improved their inflammatory markers. In the animal model for arteriosclerosis, CLA has a dramatic effect of reducing and preventing plaque. This has not yet been proven in humans.

Normally, when people lose weight 20% or more of the loss is lean body mass (muscle) this lowers the metabolic rate and frustrates further weight-loss. My patient, from teenagers to retirees, lost no lean body mass and continued to have satisfactory weight-loss when CLA was used as part of the plan.



In reading your book, your use of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) as a principal ingredient struck me. Can you elaborate on why you choose to have your patients take CLA?

My enthusiasm for CLA is based on:

1) Safety?this is of paramount importance. Animal toxicity studies have been done, as well as multiple parameters measured in human studies, both of these are well reviewed recently in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2004:79(suppl)1132s). CLA, a naturally-occurring substance, is not toxic or harmful to animals or humans. The only negative report is by Riserus in Circulation (2002), where he found an elevated c- reactive protein; however, he used a preparation that is not commercially available and not found in nature as a single isomer.

2) Effectiveness?also critically important. A recent meta-analysis [a reanalysis of compiled data] in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2007; 85:1203-1211) demonstrated the effectiveness of CLA in causing loss of body fat in humans. The study also reconfirmed the safety of CLA.

Since we now know that atherosclerosis is an inflammatory disorder, any strategy that reduces low-grade inflammation without significant side effects would seem to be beneficial in the treatment and prevention of atherosclerosis. CLA not only has antioxidant properties, but it modulates inflammatory cascade at multiple points. CLA reduces PGE2 (in much the same way as omega-3) CLA also has been shown to reduce IL-2, tumor necrosis factor-alpha and Cox–2. It reduces platelet deposition and macrophage accumulation in plaques. It also has some beneficial effect in the PPAR [peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors, important for lipid and inflammatory-mediator metabolism] area.

Part of the effect of CLA may be because it reduces fat mass and thus the amount of pro-inflammatory cytokines produced by fat cells.

I reiterate and fully admit that CLA has not been shown to have any effect on atherosclerosis in human beings. However, the results in the standard animal models for atherosclerosis (rabbits, hamsters,APO-E knockout mice) are very dramatic.

From all I know, it appears that the effective dose for weight loss and the animal studies in atherosclerosis would be equal to about 3 g of CLA per day. The anti-inflammatory properties of CLA seem to work better in the presence of adequate blood levels of omega-3.



I’m curious how and why a busy cardiothoracic surgeon would transform his practice so dramatically. Was there a specific event that triggered your change?

The transition from a very busy surgical practice to writing and speaking about the prevention of coronary disease has not been particularly easy, but it has been very interesting. I can't really point to any specific epiphany, it was a general feeling of frustration that we were not making any progress in curing heart disease, which is what I thought I was doing when I began my medical career.

Of course, I enjoyed the technical advances, the dramatic life-saving things that you do and I did on a daily basis. American medicine is spectacularly good at managing crises and spectacularly horrible at preventing those crises.

The lipid hypothesis is old and tired, even the most aggressive statin therapy reduces risk of heart attack by about 30% in a relatively small subset of people. It's interesting that we're now looking at statins as an anti-inflammatory agent.


Thanks, Dr. Lundell. We look forward to future conversations as your experience with CLA and heart disease prevention and reversal develops!


More about Dr. Lundell's book, The Cure for Heart Disease can be found at http://www.thecureforheartdisease.net.


Note: We are planning a full Special Report on CLA for the Track Your Plaque website in future.

High-tech heart attack proofing

5. September 2007 William Davis (7)

I was reminiscing the other day about what I was taught about heart disease in medical school some 20 years ago.

In the 1980s, the world was still (and remains) fascinated with this (then) novel "solution" to heart disease called coronary bypass surgery. As medical students, we all fought for a chance to watch a bypass operation being performed. And there was lots of opportunity. I was a medical student at St. Louis University School of Medicine, a center that boasted of a busy thoracic surgery service, performing up to 10 bypass operations every day.

Back then, coronary angioplasty was just a twinkle in Andreas Gruentzig's eye, still contemplating whether it was possible to put an inflatable device in the blockages of coronary arteries to re-establish blood flow. Risk detection for heart disease consisted of EKGs, screening for symptoms, detection of heart failure, and tests that are long forgotten in the dust bin of medical curiosities, tests like systolic-time intervals, phonocardiography (using amplified sound to detect abnormal heart sounds), and detailed physical examination. Treatment for heart attack involved nitroglycerin and extended bedrest. Bypass surgery would come after you recovered.

In other words, NONE of the tools we now use in the Track Your Plaque program for heart disease control and reversal were available just twenty years ago. There was no lipoprotein testing, no CT heart scans. Nobody recognized the power of omega-3 fatty acids (although epidemiologic observations were just beginning to suggest that eating fish might be the source of reduced risk for heart attack and cardiovascular death). Vitamin D? Why, that's in your milk so your babies don't get rickets.

So much of what we do today was not available then, nor were they even in the crystal ball of forward-looking people. I certainly had no idea whatsoever that I'd be talking and obsessing today about reversal of heart disease based on what I saw and learned back then.

Things have certainly come a long way and all for the better. The problem is that much of the world is stuck in 1985 and haven't yet heard that coronary disease is a manageable and reversible process. They've been sidetracked by the fiction propagated by the likes of Dr. Dean Ornish, the nonsense of low-fat diets aided and abetted by the food manufacturing industry and the USDA, the extravagant claims of some practitioners and the supplement industry. They haven't yet stumbled on the real-life experiences that are chronicled here in this Blog and the accompanying Track Your Plaque website.

Our program has been criticized for being too "high-tech," involving too many sophisticated measures like small LDL, lipoprotein(a) treatment, vitamin D blood levels. But when you see a woman reduce her heart scan score 63%, or a school principal's score plummet 51%, then that's reward in itself.

It's all about plaque

5. September 2007 William Davis (0)
Just to keep my finger on the pulse of what is being said in the world of heart disease by the media, I subscribe to many publications.

Conversations abound about cholesterol, low-fat diets, now low-carb diets, not smoking, inflammation, etc. No doubt, these all have some importance in the conversation.

But the great majority of discussions fail to identify the one truly crucial factor to identify and track: coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Sugar for breakfast

2. September 2007 William Davis (17)
We were reviewing Stuart's diet because of his persistent small LDL, low HDL, modestly elevated triglycerides, and blood sugar of 107 mg/dl.

"I've changed my diet, doc. No kidding. We never fry our foods. No butter, no goodies. I don't know what else I can possibly do."

"Okay. Let's review your diet. What did you have for breakfast?"

"Orange juice, a big glass. Gotta get my potassium. Then cereal like Cheerios or Shredded Wheat, sometimes Kashi or Raisin Bran, always in skim milk. Gotta have my one slice of toast, no butter. I'll put some fruit preserves on it. You know, real fruit. Only whole wheat bread, never white. On Sundays, we always go out for pancakes, but now we order only whole wheat."

Many of us have gotten into a peculiar habit: Having what amounts to pure sugar for breakfast. Perhaps there's a little fiber thrown in with it, but many people indulge in breakfasts that are sugar and plenty of it. That's precisely what Stuart is doing: A breakfast that, while it doesn't contain a huge amount of sugar outside of the orange juice, is promptly converted to sugar. If we were to check his blood sugar just after his standard breakfast, it would rise substantially.

This pattern has become deeply ingrained into the American psyche. Some people will act like I've suggested we overthrow the government when I suggest that breakfast cereals need to be eliminated from their lives. We all share memories of Tony the Tiger, the leprechaun on Lucky Charms ("They're magically delicious!), reading the brightly colored boxes often including games and prizes. Breakfast cereals seem as American as apple pie. But the wheat and corn content ensures a big rise in blood sugar, the sort that create small LDL, low HDL, etc.--all the patterns Stuart is showing--and make us fat.

Orange juice? Too much sugar all at once. Get your potassium from whole vegetables and fruits, not from orange juice. (Bananas are another problem source of potassium for similar reasons despite being a whole fruit.)

Toast? Any diabetic who monitors their blood sugar after meals will tell you: Even one slice of bread, ANY bread, skyrockets blood sugar. Add the fruit preserves made with sugar syrup and it's doubly worse.

Pancakes? Even if made with plenty of fiber, blood sugars go absolutely berserk after a meal like this, especially if maple syrup is added.

In other words, the seemingly healthy breakfast Stuart eats guarantees that he fails to control all his patterns that contribute to his coronary plaque growth.

After I pointed out Stuart's dietary faux pas, he asked, "Then what the heck can I eat?"

"There's actually lots of good choices: Eggs (preferably free-range, if available, or the 'omega-3' enriched) or Egg Beaters; oat products, but true oat products like slow-cooked oatmeal, or the best of all, oat bran, used as a hot cereal; ground flaxseed as a hot cereal with added fruit, berries, nuts; a handful of raw almonds, walnuts, pecans; some cheese, preferably traditional fermented cheese and not processed; low-fat cottage cheese; low-fat yogurt that you flavor yourself with berries and nuts; raw seeds like sunflower and pumpkin.

"Try and save some of your dinner foods for breakfast. For instance, save some green peppers and onions from your salad and put it in your scrambled eggs along with some olive oil. Save some of the chicken and add it to your breakfast. Save some of the cooked vegetables and have them as they are. You'll be surprised how filling dinner foods can be when eaten for breakfast."

It's not that tough. But Stuart and many other people need to break the hold that the food manufacturers have created. If you're hoping to seize hold of your heart scan score, get rid of the sugar foods in your morning, even the ones cleverly disguised as healthy.

The Low-Carb Man

31. August 2007 William Davis (4)
If ever there was an enthusiastic disciple of deceased Dr. Robert Atkins of Atkins' Diet fame, it's Mr. Jimmy Moore.








Jimmy tells the story of how he was transformed by the Atkins' approach, losing 180 lbs in the course of one year. He continues to develop this conversation, in many ways elaborating on the conversation in more sophisticated ways than even Atkins did in his lifetime.

Though we've agreed to disagree on some points of nutrition, Jimmy and I had a recent discussion about heart disease, the mis-guided ways of conventional cardiac care,and the evils of processed carbohydrates. We do differ on the role of saturated fat in heart disease and health, but beyond that difference I was impressed (reading his Blog and listening to his many webcasts) with his level of understanding of the issues. Jimmy is not some over-enthusiastic dieter. He has a grasp of the issues that exceeds that of 99% of my colleagues.

If you are interested in reading our discussion or just perusing a really fun, informative Blog/website, go to LivinLaVidaLowCarb.com. The interview is posted at:

http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/2007/08/davis-wanna-cut-plaque-in-your-arteries.html


See Jimmy Moore's before and after pictures at http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/2005/07/my-before-pictures.html. He's quite an entertaining read.

Where do you find fructose?

14. July 2009 William Davis (25)
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

Do heart scans cause cancer?

14. July 2009 William Davis (3)
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.

Goodbye, fructose

12. July 2009 William Davis (35)
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.

The statin-free life

8. July 2009 William Davis (20)
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.

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

5. July 2009 William Davis (29)
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.

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone

2. July 2009 William Davis (19)
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.

Roger's near-miss CT angiogram experience

27. June 2009 William Davis (13)
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 Myth of Prevention: Letter to the Wall Street Journal

25. June 2009 William Davis (20)




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

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

24. June 2009 William Davis (7)
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.

Sleep: A to Zzzzzzzzzz

23. June 2009 William Davis (5)
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.

Stents, defibrillators, and other profit-making opportunities

16. April 2006 William Davis (2)
As a practicing cardiologst, every day I receive a dozen or more magazines or newspapers targeting practicing physicians, not to mention the hundreds of letters, postcards, invitations to "talks", etc. that I receive. All of these materials share one common goal: To get the practicing cardiologist/physician to insert more of a manufacturer's stents, defibrillators, prescribe more of their drugs, etc.

This is a highly effective and profitable area. Pfizer's Lipitor, for instance, generated $12.2 billion just last year alone. This kind of money will fund an extraordinary amount of marketing.

I'm on the www.heart.org mailing list, a website for cardiologists. I'd estimate that 90% or more of their content is device-related: discussions of situations in which to insert stents, the expanding world of implantable devices, the ups and downs of various drugs. Rarely are discussions of healthy lifestyles, exercise, nutritional supplements, part of the dialogue.

How can you protect yourself from the brainwashed physician, flooded with visions of all the devices he can put in you, all the drugs that can "cure" your disease? Simple: information. Be better informed. Ask pointed questions. The idiotic lay press tells you to ask a doctor about his education. That's not generally the problem. Some of the best educated doc's I know are also the most flagrantly guilty of profiteering medicine.

Ask your doctor about his/her philosphy about the use of medications, devices, etc. If their word is God, take it or leave it, run the other way.

Will radiation kill you?

16. April 2006 William Davis (4)
Several people have asked me lately if radiation is truly dangerous. These conversations were sparked by an editorial comment made on a column I wrote for Life Extension Magazine's April, 2006 issue on "Three ways to detect hidden heart disease".

Among the methods that were discussed in this piece was, of course, CT heart scanning. Anyone who is involved with CT heart scans Quickly recognizes the spectacular power of this test to uncover hidden, unsuspected heart disease, literally within seconds. In 2006, there's really nothing like it for the every day person to have hidden heart disease detected and precisely quantified.

Yet, the "rebuttal" to my article claimed that the broad use of heart scans was only my personal view and that, in truth, radiation kills people.

NONSENSE! If an ovarian cancer is discovered by a CT scan of the abdomen, is that unwise use of radiation? If pneumonia or lung cancer is discovered on a chest x-ray with minimal radiation exposure, have we performed a disservice. Of course not. In fact, these are often lifesaving applications of radiation.

Can radiation be used unwisely with excessive exposure? Of course. The 64 slice CT angiograms are just an example of this. Dr. Mehmet Oz announced on Oprah recently that this was a test to be used for broad screening of women for heart disease. This is wrong. The radiation required for a full 64 slice CT angiogram test is truly excessive for a screening application. You wouln't want to get breast cancer from your mammogram, would you? The radiation from a 64-slice CT angiogram is similar to that of a heart catheterization in the hospital--too much for screening. This is not to be confused with a CT heart scan for a calcium score performed on a 64 slice device. I think this can be performed with acceptable radiation exposure.

Think about what would happen, for instance, if you had your heart disease undetected, had a heart attack, and went to the hospital? During your hospitalization, you'd likely get five chest x-rays, a heart catheterization, perhaps one or more nuclear imaging tests, maybe even a full CT scan (with far more radiation than a screening heart scan). The amount of radiation of a heart scan is trivial compared to what you obtain in a hospital.

So take it all in perspective. The low level of radiation required for a simple heart scan (not an angiogram) does not by itself substantially add to your lifetime risk of radiation exposure. It may, in fact, save your life or reduce your life long exposure to radiation.

Are you using bogus supplements?

16. April 2006 William Davis (0)
I consider nutritional supplements an important, many times a critical,part of a coronary plaque control program.

But use the wrong brand or use it in the wrong way, and you can obtain no benefit. Occasionally, you can even suffer adverse effects.

Take coenzyme Q10, for instance. (Track Your Plaque Members: A full, in-depth Special Report on coenzyme Q10 will be on the website in the next couple of weeks.) Take the wrong brand to minimize the likelihood of statin-related muscle aches, and you may find taking Lipitor, Zocor, Crestor, etc. intolerable or impossible. However, take a 100 mg preparation from a trusted manufacturer in an oil-based capsule, and you are far more likely to avoid the inevitable muscle aches. (Though, of course, consult with your doctor, for all it's worth, if you develop muscle aches on any of these prescription agents.)

Unfortunately, you and I often don't truly know for a fact if a bottle from the shelf of a health food store or drugstore is accurately labeled, pure, free of contaminants, and efficacious.

One really great service for people serious about supplements is the www.consumerlab.com website. They are a membership website (with dues very reasonable) started by a physician interested in ensuring supplement quality. Consumer Lab tests nutritional supplements to determine whether it 1) contains what the label claims, and 2) is free of contamination. (I have no reason to pitch this or any other site; it's just a great service.) They recently found a supplement with Dr. Andrew Weil's name on it to have excess quantities of lead!

What Consumer Lab does not do is determine efficacy. In other words, they do a responsible job of reporting on what clinical studies have been performed to support the use of a specific supplement. However, true claims of efficacy of supplement X to treat symptom or disease Y can only come with FDA approval. Supplements rarely will be put through the financial rigors of this process.

If you're not a serious supplement user, but just need a reliable source, we've had good experiences with:

--GNC--the national chain
--Vitamin Shoppe--also a national chain
--www.lifeextension.com or www.lef.org--A great and low-priced source, but they do charge a $75 annual membership that comes with a subscription to their magazine, Life Extension (which I frequently write for) and several free supplements that you may or may not need. Again, I'm not pitching them; they are simply a good source.
--Solgar--a major manufacturer
--Vitamin World
--Nature's Bounty
--Sundown

There are many others, as well. Unfortunately, it's only the occasional manufacturer or distributor that permits unnacceptable contamination with lead or other poisons, or inaccurately labels their supplement (e.g., contains 1000 mg of glucosamine when it really contains 200 mg). I have not come across any manufacturer/distributor who has systemtically marketed uniformly bad products.

It really helps to have someone to lean on

16. April 2006 William Davis (0)
Among my patients are several husband and wife teams, both of whom have heart disease by some measure. Several couples, for instance, consist of a huband who's received a stent, survived a heart attack, or has some other scar of the conventional approach. The wives generally have a substantial heart scan score in the several hundred range.

There are a few couples for which the roles are reversed: wife with bypass, heart attack, etc. and husband with a substantial quantity of coronary plaque by CT heart scan.

From them all, however, I've learned the power of teamwork. When both wife and husband (or even "significant other") are committed to the effort of controlling or reversing heart disease risk, the likelihood of success is magnified many-fold. Everything is easier: shopping for and choosing foods, incorporating supplements in the budget, taking vacations with a healthy focus, following through and sticking with your program.

Several of the couples have succeeded in obtaining regression of plaque for both man and woman. Both have reduced their heart scan scores and, as a result, dramatically reduced the potential for future heart attack and procedures.

Unfortunately, I will also see the opposite situation: One spouse committed to the program but the other indifferent. They may say such things as "You can't control what happens in the future." Or, "There's no way you can get rid of risk for heart disease. My doctor says it's hereditary." Or, "I've eaten this way since I was a kid. I'm not changing now for you or for anybody else."

Such negative commentary can't help but erode your commitment to health. Most of us recognize these sorts of comments as self-fulfulling and self-defeating.

What should you do if you have an unsupportive partner? Not easy. But it really can help to seek out a supportive partner, whether it's a friend, relative, or other significant person in your life. Of course, not everybody can find such a person. Perhaps that's another way our program can help.

I'd like to hear from anyone who does obtain substantial support of someone close, or if you are struggling to do so.

Five foods that can booby trap your heart disease prevention program

14. April 2006 William Davis (0)
There are several foods that commonly come up on people's lists of habitual foods that are truly undesirable for a heart disease prevention program. Curiously, people choose these foods because of the mis-perception that they are healthy. My patients are often shocked when I tell them that they are not healthy and are, in fact, detrimental to their program.

I'm not talking about foods that are obviously unhealthy. You know these: fried foods, greasy cheeseburgers, French fries, bacon, sausage, etc. Nearly everyone knows that the high saturated fat content, low fiber, and low nutritional value of these foods are behind heart disease, hypertension, and a variety of cancers.

I'm talking about foods that people say they eat because they view them as healthy--but they're not.

Here's the list:

1) Low-fat or non-fat salad dressings--Virtually all brands we've examined have high-fructose corn syrup as one the main ingredients. What does high fructose corn syrup do? Triggers sugar cravings, makes your triglycerides skyrocket (causing formation of abnormal lipoproteins like small LDL), and causes diabetes. The average American now ingests nearly 80 lbs of this evil sweetener per year. You're far better off with olive, canol, grapeseed, or flaxseed based salad dressings.

2) Breakfast cereals--If you've been following these discussions, you know that the majority of breakfast cereals are sugar. They may not actually contain sugar, but they contain ingredients that are converted to sugar in your body. They may be cleverly disguised as healthy--Raisin Bran, Shredded Wheat, etc.

3) Pretzels--"A low-fat snack". That's right. A low-fat snack that raises blood sugar like eating table sugar from the bowl.

4) Margarine--Forget this silly argument about which is worse, butter or margarine. Which is worse, strychnine or lead? Both are poisons to the human body. Who cares which is worse? Fortunately, there are now healthy "margarines" like Smart Balance and Benecol that lack the saturated fat or hydrogenated fat of either.

4) Bananas--Bananas are not all that intrinsically unhealthy. The problem is that people will say to me, "Oh sure, I eat fruit. Two bananas a day." What I hear is "I don't really eat fruit with high nutrient value, fiber, and reduced sugar release. I reach for only bananas which yield extreme sugar rises in my blood and are low fiber." Aren't they high in potassium? Yes, but there are better sources. Cut back if you are a banana freak.


Why the mis-perceptions? A holdover from the low-fat diet days and marketing from food manufacturers are the principal reasons. Of course, foods are meant to be enjoyed, but be informed about it. Choose foods for the right reasons, not because of some cleverly-crafted marketing campaign.

Breakfast of champions?

12. April 2006 William Davis (1)
I spend time every day educating or reminding patients that breakfast cereals are not health foods.

I see jaws drop in shock when I tell them that, in my opinion and despite the marketing claims, Cheerios, Raisin Bran, Shredded Wheat, and the like do not yield health benefits. In fact, they do the the opposite: dramatically raise blood sugar and trigger an adverse cascade of events that eventually leads to diabetes and heart disease.

Why the health claims in advertising? Because these products contain insoluble fiber, the sort that makes your bowels regular. Yes, your bowels are important to health, too. But the benefits end there.

Breakfast cereals are a highly refined, processed food that are not good for your plaque control program. What they are is a highly profitable, multi-billion dollar business, deeply entrenched in American culture ("They'rrrre grrrrrreat!"--Tony the Tiger; "There's a whole scoop of raisins in every box of Post Raisin Bran!" Bet you remember them all.)

I find it particularly upsetting when I see the stamp of approval from the American Heart Association on some products. Gee, if the Heart Association says it's good for you, it must be true! Don't you believe it. The American Heart Association relies on corporate donations, just like any other charity.

If you must eat breakfast cereals, refer to www.glycemicindex.com for a full database of glycemic indexes. You can look up a specific product and it will list its glycemic index, or sugar-releasing properties. You should try to keep glycemic index of the foods you choose below 50.

For a revealing discussion of the influence of food marketers on our perceptions of food, see Track Your Plaque nutrition expert, Gay Riley's discussion The Marketing of Food and Diets in America at her website, www.netnutritionist.com.

In heart disease prevention, shoot for perfection

12. April 2006 William Davis (0)
It really struck me today that it's the people who've chosen to compromise their prevention program who end up with trouble--heart procedures, heart attack, even heart failure.

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

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

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

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

The epidemic of small LDL

11. April 2006 William Davis (0)
Of the patients I saw in my office yesterday, virtually EVERYONE had small LDL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A great discussion on vitamin D

10. April 2006 William Davis (0)
If you need better convincing that vitamin D is among the most underappreciated but crucial vitamins for health, see Russell Martin's review of vitamin D and its role in cancer prevention. You'll find it in March, 2006 Life Extension Magazine or their www.LEF.org website at:

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

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

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

MSNBC Report: We need more heart procedures!

10. April 2006 William Davis (0)
A recent headline from MSNBC by Robert Bazell reads:

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

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

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

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

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