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 wi

My life is easy

17. February 2007 William Davis (3)

In the old days (the 1980s and 1990s), practicing cardiology was very physically and emotionally demanding. Since procedures dominated the practice and preventive strategies were limited, heart attacks were painfully common. It wasn't unusual to have to go to the hospital for a patient having a heart attack at 3 am several times a week.

Those were the old days. Nowadays, my life is easy. Heart attacks, for the most part, are a thing of the past in the group of people who follow the Track Your Plaque principles. I can't remember the last time I had a coronary emergency for someone following the program.

But I am reminded of what life used to be like for me when I occasionally have to live up to my hospital responsibilities and/or cover the practices of my colleagues. (Though I voice my views on prevention to my colleagues, the most I get is a odd look. When a colleague recently covered my practice for a weekend while I visited family out of town, he commented to me how quiet my practice was. I responded, "That's because my patients are essentially cured." "Oh, sure they are." He laughed. No registration that he had witnessed something that was genuine and different from his experience of day-to-day catastrophe among his own patients. None.)

I recently had to provide coverage for a colleague for a week while he took his family to Florida. During the 7 days, his patients experienced 4 heart attacks. That is, 4 heart attacks among patients under the care of a cardiologist.

If you want some proof of the power of prevention, watch your results and compare them to the "control" group of people around you: neighbors, colleagues, etc. Unfortunately, the word on prevention, particularly one as powerful as Track Your Plaque, is simply not as widespread as it should be. Instead, it's drowned out in the relentless flood of hospital marketing for glitzy hospital heart programs, the "ask your doctor about" ads for drugs like Plavix, which is little better than spit in preventing heart attacks (except in stented patients), and the media's fascinating with high-tech laser, transplant, robotic surgery, etc.

Prevention? That's not news. But it sure can make the slow but sure difference between life and death, having a heart attack or never having a heart attack.

My bread contains 900 mg omega-3

15. February 2007 William Davis (8)

Phyllis is the survivor of a large heart attack (an "anterior" myocardial infarction involving the crucial front of the heart) several years ago. Excessive fatigue prompted a stress test, which showed poor blood flow in areas outside the heart attack zone. This prompted a heart catheterization, then a bypass operation one year ago.

FINALLY, Phyllis began to understand that her unhealthy lifestyle played a role in causing her heart disease. But lifestyle alone wasn't to blame. Along with being 70 lbs overweight and overindulging in unhealthy sweets every day, she also had lipoprotein(a), small LDL particles, and high triglycerides. The high triglycerides were also associated with its evil "friends," VLDL and IDL (post-prandial, or after-eating, particles).

When I met her, Phyllis' triglycerides typically ranged from 200-300 mg/dl . Fish oil was the first solution, since it is marvelously effective for reducing triglycerides, as well as VLDL and IDL. Her dose: 6000 mg of a standard 1000 mg capsule (6 capsules) to provide 1800 mg EPA + DHA, the effective omega-3 fatty acids.

But Phyllis is not terribly good at following advice. She likes to wander off and follow her own path. She noticed that the healthy bread sold at the grocery store and containing flaxseed boasted "900 mg of omega-3s per slice!". So she ate two slices of the flaxseed-containing bread per day and dropped the fish oil.

Guess what? Triglycerides promptly rebounded to 290 mg/dl, along with oodles of VLDL and IDL.

A more obvious example occurs in people with a disorder called "familial hypertriglyceridemia," or the inherited inability to clear triglycerides from the blood. These people have triglycerides of 800 mg/dl, 2000 mg/dl, or higher. Fish oil yields dramatic drops of hundreds, or even thousands of mg. Fish oil likely achieves this effect by activating the enzyme, lipoprotein lipase, that is responsible for clearing blood triglycerides. Flaxseed oil and other linolenic acid sources yield . . .nothing.

Don't get me wrong. Flaxseed is a great food. As the ground seed, it reduces LDL cholesterol, reduces blood sugar, provides fiber for colon health, and may even yield anti-cancer benefits. Flaxseed oil is a wonderful oil, rich in monounsaturates, low in saturates, and rich in linolenic acid, an oil fraction that may provides heart benefits a la Mediterranean diet.

But linolenic acid from flaxseed is not the same as EPA + DHA from fish oil. This is most graphically proven by the lack of any triglyceride-reducing effects of flaxseed preparations.

Enjoy your flaxseed oil and ground flaxseed--but don't stop your fish oil because of it. Heart disease and coronary plaque are serious business. You need serious tools to combat and control them. Fish oil is serious business for triglycerides. Flaxseed is not.

More Omnivore's Dilemma

11. February 2007 William Davis (2)

Another irresistible quote from Michael Pollan’s book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma:

“In many ways breakfast cereal is the prototypical processed food: four cents’ worth of commodity corn (or some other equally cheap grain) transformed into four dollars’ worth of processed food. What an alchemy! Yet it is performed straightforwardly enough: by taking several of the output streams issuing from a wet mill (corn meal, corn starch, corn sweetener, as well as a handful of tinier chemical fractions) and then assembling them into an attractively novel form. Further value is added in the form of color and taste, then branding and packaging. Oh yes, and vitamins and minerals, which are added to give the product a sheen of healthfulness and to replace the nutrients that are lost whenever whole foods are processed. On the strength of this alchemy the cereals group generates higher profits for General Mills than any other division. Since the raw materials in processed foods are so abundant and cheap (ADM and Cargill will gladly sell them to all comers) protecting whatever is special about the value you add to them is imperative.”

A food manufacturer’s nightmare is when you and your family shop in the produce aisle in the grocery store. Produce is unmodified (aside from the pesticide and genetic-engineering issues), not added to, and therefore of no interest to the food manufacturer, since no additional profit can be squeezed out of it. If you pay 45 cents for a cucumber, there’s no room for a processor to multiply it’s return.

Vegetables and fruits have imperfections, no doubt, particularly pesticide residues and the “dumbing-down” of some foods to increase their desirability (e.g., green grapes, what I call “grape candy”). But vegetables and fruits are the closest you can get to foods that are essentially unmodified by a food manufacturer. Due to the absence of processing, they are not calorie-dense like a bag of chips; they include all the naturally-occurring healthy factors like flavonoids that food scientists have, thus far, struggled and failed to identify, quantify, and control; and they lack all the unhealthy additives that processed foods require for extended shelf life, palatability, and reconstitution (anti-separating agents, emulsifiers, sweeteners, etc.)

Vegetables, in particular, should be the cornerstone of your plaque control program. Not breakfast cereals, breads, bacon, sausage, mayonnaise, fruit drinks and soda, all the foods that worsen the causes of coronary plaque and raise your heart scan score.

If you would like to understand how the current perverted state of affairs in food have come about, Pollan’s book is must reading.

Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma

11. February 2007 William Davis (0)

“ ‘You are what you eat’ is a truism hard to argue with, and yet it is, as a visit to a feedlot suggests, incomplete, for you are what what you eat eats, too. And what we are, or have become, is not just meat but number 2 corn and oil.”

Author Michael Pollan offers unique, enlightening, and entertaining insights into the food we eat in his new book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A natural history of four meals.

Pollan draws parallels between the dilemma of the primitive human living in the wild, having to stumble through the choices of animals and plants that could nourish or kill, and the ironically modern return of this phenomenon in present-day supermarkets. While the dangers of food choices aren’t as immediate as in the wild (eat the wrong mushroom or herb, for instance, and you die), they can nonetheless be life-threatening, or at least health-threatening. Hydrogenated oils, high-fructose corn syrup, carageenan, guar gum. . .“What is all this stuff anyway, and where in the world did it come from?”

Among the issues Pollan discusses is that of modern cattle raising practices: the rush to fatten a cow from an 80 lb calf to a 1200-pound, bloated cow over a period of 14 months. Nature created this animal to mature over a 4 to 5 year period through grazing, thus it’s beautifully “engineered” ruminant system that allows it to digest cellulose in grasses, a process that humans and other mammals are incapable of. The pressures to bring greater quantities of beef to market at a reduced price and make more money have resulted in a farming industry that encourages the incorporation of unnatural, often inhumane practices like corn feeding (rather than grass grazing), refeeding of bovine body parts (thus “mad cow disease”), and widespread and chronic administration of hormones and antibiotics.

(I can't help but think that the rapid and perverse fattening of cattle by industrial "farming" is paralleled by the fattening of the eating American. After all, we are the hapless recipients of this flood of cheap, unhealthy, plasticized food.)

The industrialization of food has de-personalized the act of eating. You no longer have any connection with the green pepper in your salad (unless you grew it yourself), nor do you have any appreciation for the suffering of the cow in your hamburger. Worse, the distortion of livestock raising practices has modified the food composition of meat. Range-fed animals, leaner and richer in omega-3 fatty acids, have been replaced by the marbled, saturated fat-rich modern grocery bought meats.

This is a theme that Pollan reiterates time and again: how food processing adds value to the manufacturer, often starting with a healthy ingredient but modifying it, adding ingredients, taking out others, until it’s something decidedly unhealthy. Yet the manufacturer will trumpet the fact that a healthy ingredient is included. Breakfast cereals are the most blatant example of this. What the heck are Cheerios but an over-processed attempt to make more money out of the simple oat?

Pollan’s eloquent and unique insights into food are definitely worth reading.

As always, per our Track Your Plaque policy, I recommend Mr. Pollan’s book strictly on its merits. We obtain no “cut”, commission, or other financial gain by recommending his book. Track Your Plaque members pay their modest membership fee for truth. They do not pay for us to advertise something that provides hidden advantage to us. We do not advertise, editorialize to steer you towards a specific product or service. What we say, we truly believe.

The most frequently asked question of all

8. February 2007 William Davis (0)

The most frequently asked question on the Track Your Plaque website:

"Can you recommend a doctor in my area who can help me follow the Track Your Plaque program?"

This is a problem. Unfortunately, I wish I could tell everyone that we have hundreds or thousands of physicians nationwide who have been thoroughly educated and adhere to the principles I believe are crucial in heart disease:

1) Identify and quantify the amount of coronary atherosclerotic plaque present. In 2007, the best technique remains CT heart scans.

2) Identify all hidden causes of plaque. This includes Lp(a), post-prandial disorders, small LDL, and vitamin D deficiency.

3) Correct all patterns.

But we don't.

You'd think that this simple formula, as straightforward and rational as it sounds, would be easily followed by many if not most physicians. But Track Your Plaque followers know that it simply is not true. My colleagues, the cardiologists, are hell-bent on implanting the next new device, providing a lot more excitement to them as well as considerably more revenue.

The primary care physician is already swamped in a sea of new information, going from osteoporosis drugs, to arthritis, to gynecologic issues, to skin rashes and flu. Heart disease prevention? Oh yeah, that too. They can only dabble in heart disease prevention a la prescription for Lipitor. That's quick and easy.

Nonetheless, I believe we should work towards identifying the occasional physician who is indeed willing to help people follow a program like Track Your Plaque. As we grow, we will need to identify some mechanism of professional education and we will maintain a record of these practitioners. But right now, we're simply already stretched to the limit just doing what we are doing.

If you come across a physician who practices in this fashion and you've had a positive relationship, we'd like to hear about it.

Do stents kill?

6. February 2007 William Davis (5)

There's apparently a lively conversation going on at the HeartHawk Blog (www.hearthawk.blogspot.com). Among the hot topics raised was just how bad it is to have a stent.

I think that my comments some time back may have started this controversy. I've lately noticed that having a stent screws up your heart scan scoring in the vicinity of the stent. I was referring to the fact that I've now seen several people in the Track Your Plaque program do everything right and then show what I call "regional reversal": unstented arteries show dramatic drops in score of 18-30%, but the artery with a stent shows significant increase in score.

This is consistent with what we observe in the world outside Track Your Plaque when stents are inserted. Someone will get a stent, for instance, in the left anterior descending artery. A year later, there will be a "new" plaque at the mouth of the stent or just beyond the far end. This is generally treated by inserting another stent. Use of a drug-coated stent seems to have no effect on this issue.

Now, my smart friends in the Track Your Plaque program would immediately ask, "Does this mean you continually end up chasing these plaques that arise as a result of stents? Do you create an endless loop of procedures?"

Thankfully, the majority of times you do not. Rarely, this does happen and can lead to need for bypass surgery to circumvent the response. But it is unusual. The tissue that grows above and below stents does seem to be unusually impervious to the preventive efforts we institute.

Perhaps there's some new supplement, medication, or other strategy that will address this curious new brand of plaque growth. Until then, you and I can only take advantage of what is known. If it's any consolation, the plaque that seems to grow because of a previously inserted stent seems to lack the plaque "rupture" capacity of "naturally-occuring" plaque. It is, indeed, somehow different. It is more benign, less likely to cause heart attack. It's always been my feeling that this tissue behaves more like the "scar" tissue that grows within stents, causing "re-stenosis", a more benign, less rupture-prone kind of tissue.

Dr. Reinhold Vieth on vitamin D

5. February 2007 William Davis (4)

A Track Your Plaque member brough the following webcast to our attention:

Prospects for Vitamin D Nutrition
which can be found at http://tinyurl.com/f93vl

Despite the painfully dull title, the webcast is the best summary of data on the health benefits on vitamin D that I've seen. The presenter is Dr. Reinhold Vieth, who is among the handful of worldwide authorities on vitamin D. In 1999, Dr. Vieth authored the first review to concisely and persuasively argue that vitamin D nutrition was woefully neglected and that its potential for health was enormous.
(See Vieth R, Am J Clin Nutr 1999 May;69(5):842-856 at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=10232622&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum.)

I predict that, after viewing Dr. Vieth's hour-long discussion, you will be as convinced as I am that vitamin D is crucial for health. Unfortunately, Dr. Vieth doesn't delve into the conversation about the potential effects on heart disease, since his audience was primary interested in multiple sclerosis, a disease for which vitamin D replacement promises to have enormous possibilities. Even in 2007, the data suggesting that vitamin D has heart benefits is circumstantial. Nonetheless, from our experience, I am thoroughly convinced that, with replacement to blood levels of vitamin D to 50 ng/ml, heart scan scores drop more readily and faster.

If you view Dr. Vieth's wonderful webcast, keep in mind that when he discusses vitamin D blood levels, he's using units of nmol/l, rather than ng/ml. To convert nmol/l to ng/ml, divided by 2.5. For example, 125 nmol/l is the same as 50 ng/ml (125/2.5 = 50).

Vitamin D on Good Morning America

1. February 2007 William Davis (9)

Positive comments about vitamin D made it to a discussion on Good Morning America today about the new and exciting developments in nutrition and "functional foods".

I'm thrilled that the media is conducting these conversations. It sure is making my job easier, not having to persuade patients that taking vitamin D is truly and hugely beneficial for health. I still have to struggle with my colleagues, who tell patients to stop the "poisonous" doses we use.

But I worry that many of the details behind vitamin D don't quite make it to the media conversation. These are crucial, make-it-or-break-it issues, such as:

--Vitamin D must be vitamin D3 or cholecalciferol, not D2 or ergocalciferol. D2 is virtually worthless. Little or none is converted to the active D3, despite the fact that D2 is the form often added to some foods.

--Vitamin D3 supplements must be oil-based capsules, or gelcaps. Tablets are so poorly or erratically absorbed that it's simply not worth the effort. (We get ours from the Vitamin Shoppe.)

--The dose should be sufficient to eliminate the phenemena of deficiency, which is around 50 ng/ml. I take 6000 units per day. Dr. John Cannell of www.vitamindcouncil.com takes 5000 units per day. I give my wife 2000 units per day (she's not as deficient as I was), each of my kids 1000 units per day, except for my 180 lb. 15 year old who takes 2000 units.

I fear that, when people hear that vitamin D packs fabulous effects for health, they will take a 400 unit tablet--nothing will happen. They will not obtain the benefits such as reduction of blood pressure and blood sugar; increased bone density, reduction of arthritis, dramatic reduction in risk for fractures; reduction in risk for colon, prostate, and breast cancer; reduction in risk for multiple sclerosis; reduction in inflammatory processes such as those evidenced by C-reactive protein; and facilitation of reduction of heart scan score.

Would you bet your life on chelation?

31. January 2007 William Davis (1)

Hugh's heart scan score was 1751, an awful score. Recall that, at this level of scoring, Hugh's heart attack and death risk is 25% per year.

Obviously, serious efforts need to be taken. In this situation, much as I despise drug companies and what they represent and their heavy-handed ways, I'm more inclined to resort directly to prescription agents, as well as our nutritional supplements and other strategies. The price of dilly-dallying could be his death.

Hugh and his wife asked about chelation. Now, there are five studies I'm aware of that have tried to examine the value of chelation. None showed any measurable benefit, though all were rather weak in design and small in number of participants. One study, for instance, looked at whether anginal chest pains were provoked any later after chelation. Another looked at whether calf claudication, or calf cramping while walking due to artery blockages in the leg arteries, was delayed on treadmill testing after chelation. No benefit was observed: no delay in provocation of angina, no delay in provocation of claudication.

However, the adherents of chelation have been vehement enough that the NIH has funded a large, multi-center study to settle the question once and for all. Best I can tell, the study has not been contaminated by any drug company involvement. It is meant to be an unbiased, objective study of whether chelation has any value.

My personal experience in patients who underwent chelation is that, despite spending hundreds or thousands of dollars, plaque grew at the expected rate--no effect at all.

None of this constitutes proof of efficacy nor proof of lack of efficacy. We will need to await the NIH trial to have better information.

Should Hugh bet his life on chelation? I advised him strongly against it. At this point, the only reason I can see to pursue chelation would be faith--that is, expectation based not on fact, but on hope.

The powerful forces preserving the status quo

31. January 2007 William Davis (1)

An interesting quote from the book, Critical Condition: How health care in American became big business--and bad medicine:

Politics and Profits

To protect its interests and expand its influence, the health care industrial complex has done what all successful special interests do: It's become a big donor and a high-powered lobby in Washington. In the last fifteen years, HMOs, insurers, pharmacuetical companies, hospital corporations, physicians, and other segments of the industry contributed $479 million to political campaigns--more than the energy industry ($315 million), commercial banks ($133 million), and big tobacco ($52 million). More telling is how much the health care industry spends on lobbying. It invests more than any other industry except one, according to the nonpartiisan Center for Responsive Politics. From 1997 to 2000, the most recent year for which complete data is available, the industry spent $734 million lobbying Congress and the executive branch. Only the finance, insurance, and real estate lobby exceeded that amount in the same period, with a ttoal of $823 million. In contrast, the defense industry spent $211 million--less than one-third of the health care expenditure.

These telling statistics indicate just how vigorously profit-seeking forces in heart care are trying to preserve the status quo. Hospitals want to protect their valuable procedure-driven enterprise, the pharmaceutical industry wants to protect its enormous though little-known niche of procedure-based medications (like $1200 a dose ReoPro), and the medical device industry wants to maintain the multi-billion dollar-generating machine aided and abetted by the FDA's 501k rule (that makes entry to market a breeze).

The current procedure based formula for heart disease profits so many and they are desperate to preserve it. Resistance to the deep-pocketed efforts of industry and hospitals will come from people like you and me, trying to propagate a better way.

Remember: hospital procedures for coronary disease represent the failure of prevention. They are not--any longer--successes in and of themselves.

Read a scathing insight into some of these practices by reading investigative journalists' Donald Barlett and James Steele's book, Critical Condition. I found their descriptions painfully accurate. (But don't get too angry! Remember: only optimists reverse their plaque! We need to turn the conversation in a positive direction, not just in this Blog or the Track Your Plaque website, but nationwide.)

One of the new missions for the www.cureality.com website is to help you understand just how powerful, insidious, shrewd, and pervasive the efforts to maintain the current system truly are.