Myocardial infraction

I've seen a few heart attacks this past year . . . but none in the people who follow this program.

I saw a heart attack in a priest, a wonderful man who was unable to say "no" to his parishioners who insisted on bringing pies, cakes, and cookies every day.

I saw an impending heart attack in a 74-year old man, a football coach who thought the whole wheat-free, low-carb thing was some wacko trend. Four stents later, he's changed his mind.

A 69-year old woman had to be hospitalized for heart failure due to partial closure of an artery. She repeatedly told me that she simply could not follow the diet because it was "too restrictive."

There were a few others. Interestingly, all felt they were eating healthy, minimizing junk foods and avoiding fatty foods. None were wheat-free nor restricted carbohydrates.

In other words, in the people who follow the basic advice of the Track Your Plaque program to do such simple things as eliminate wheat, don't indulge in junk carbohydrates, normalize vitamin D status, supplement omega-3 fatty acids, supplement iodine and correct any thyroid dysfunction . . . well, they have no heart attacks.

Comments (45) -

  • Gretchen

    1/15/2012 3:01:22 PM |

    What's your opinion of the study showing that vitamin D levels above the low end of the normal range were associated with elevated CRP levels?

  • Linda

    1/15/2012 3:19:34 PM |

    Correct Spelling:  Myocardial Infarction

  • Helen Howes

    1/15/2012 4:19:31 PM |

    Er, Joke, sweetie..

    HH

  • Kokoboulis

    1/15/2012 4:34:48 PM |

    What an extremely informative article.

  • Anne

    1/15/2012 5:06:26 PM |

    In 2000 I had cardiac bypass after multiple failed stents. In 2003 I thought I was dying. I was short of breath and had pitting edema and many other health problems. My doctor told me I was probably reblocking and suggested a cardiac cath.

    I did not know about a connection between wheat and the heart but I did find a connection between my peripheral neuropathy and gluten. Up to the time I stopped gluten, I was carefully following the AHA dietary guidelines for a healthy heart. I even followed the Ornish diet for about a year. All I did was get sicker and sicker.  Dropping my favorite food(wheat) and all gluten was what made the big difference in my health. My PN is no longer painful or progressing. I also had complete resolution many other symptoms including the pitting edema and  shortness of breath. It has been over 8 years and my heart is still doing great.

    Of course there are other factors to consider which Dr. Davis addresses on his websites. Vitamin D, blood sugar, thyroid to name a few. I am a work in progress.

  • Teresa

    1/15/2012 7:52:30 PM |

    Dr. Davis
    I am not trying to say you are wrong, Quite the opposite, I think you are on the right track with your program.  But, have you had enough people in your program long enough to make a statistically significant sample?  I am sure there are more people in the world who don't follow your program than do.  That alone would make it more likely for the non-followers to have a heart attack.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/15/2012 10:44:04 PM |

    MI (myocardial infarction), usually a sequel of ischemia,  is often preceded by episode(s) of angina. In many resilient people the angina event offers the heart a chance to deploy inherent plasticity in what is called "pre-conditioning". Many  who have angina episodes 1-3 days before suffering a full on MI  seemingly paradoxically recover with less serious subsequent arrhythmia ,and for the next 1-5 years have lower susceptibility for in hospital dying (statistically).

    "Pre-conditioning" is a likely explanation for Doc's preventative MI protocol for many middle-age & up adults. Ischemia (felt as angina)causes a heart cell mitochondrial response, and also surface of that cell response. This involves channels & potassium Kiss with the same name in those respective membranes, but depending on which part is involved the level of reaction differs. And of course, there are isoform variations of this potassium Kiss ion channel that responds to ATP molecules (K-ATP).

    Mitochondrial K-ATP (mtKatp) is only discussed here. Ischemia results in some heart muscle cell not being able to sustain ATP output. In healthy heart cells it is  normal levels of ATP that keep the channel mtKatp closed. Healthy mitochondria don't ideally let in too much K because it makes them osmoticly swell inside, among other side effects.

    Potassium Kiss flooding into a mitochondria from a channel mtKatp opening up does several  significant things. One is keeping detrimental calcium (Ca++) from getting into the cardiac cell which is being forced to deal with a ischemic event. Otherwise Ca++  instigates unwanted pore openings in that mitochondria's membrane; letting the inside/outside balance of that mitochondria & the cytosol interact detrimentally.

    In other words a significant up-stream "pre-conditioning" benefit is from mtKatp channel opening in response to when that heart muscle cell is unfortunately suddenly challenged by ischemia. Doc tries to prevent high blood sugar (hyper-glycemia) like in metabolic syndrome & t ype II diabetes because hyper-glycemia itself opens mtKatp channels; but this is at the wrong time.

    Meaning the hyper-glycemic individual, despite having mtKatp channels quite open, has lost a large part of their potential heart cell plasticity (ie: recovery despite ischemia) because they can't turn on their  crucial natural "conditioned" response to ischemia . They lose an important preventative mode; since, for them,  the protective "pre-conditioning" dynamic can't flip "on" into action because it wasn't  kept primed in the "off" position. When young this doesn't usually matter because time hasn't set them up for ischemia yet.

  • Conan

    1/16/2012 3:17:01 PM |

    Dear Dr. Davis,
    Many people have confusion about who to believe on this issue like myself.  I have followed the low carb, no wheat diet for over a year.  HDL went up to 58 from 42.  I am a big fan of yours and convert to this lifestyle. The confusion happens like this:  I shared your book and forum with our family doctor, and told him about the results I had.  He seemed interested.  I saw him a few weeks later at a social event and his responses were this.
    1. LDL size is insignificant.  If he sees a patient with elevated cholesterol with pattern A LDL, he will still put them on a statin to stop Plaque progression, he sees it as insurance.
    2.   He says they are proven to stop plaque progression.
    3.  A person gets enough vitamin d from diet and walking to their mailbox everyday.
    4.  The only thing that matters to him is reducing total LDL to 50 or below for at risk patients.
    5.  If you have heart disease, than there is no need for a heart scan, because we already know you have heart disease.

    I think many people read your forum, get excited to hear about your approach, and then go talk to their primary care physician and get shot down on it.  It can be confusing and discouraging to say the least.

  • Kent

    1/16/2012 6:08:31 PM |

    Conan,
    That's the standard lingo fed down the medical pipeline. I've heard all of those as well. Plus this one; "there is nothing we can do to lower LP(a), so there is no since in testing for it".

  • Dotslady

    1/16/2012 8:20:35 PM |

    I've wanted to ask you to write about dairy and the heart since my heart attack, and now that you're done with Wheat Belly.   I talked with people years ago about your blog and about gluten-free (to no avail), and now they're telling ME about your book like it's a new discovery (how soon they forget!).  Funny.  

    I was dx celiac 2-06 at the almost age of 46.  I'm obese and initially gained 22 lbs going gluten free because I turned to Yoplait yogurt when I didn't know what to eat (+ learning to substitute SAD diet with gf SAD diet).  I learned about insulin via Jenny's Bloodsugar101 blog, and I've whittled away at changing my diet ever since.  So many bloggers have changed my life, and I'm so grateful because I'm getting some QUALITY of life I never knew before.  

    I was almost Paleo with a lot of cheating, and I continued having dairy until last year when I had a heart attack at age 49 after running my first 5K (trying to get healthy and lose weight).  

    I won't go into the history of why, but I was not taking my usual omega3 supplement.  I was supplementing with 5-HTP (100mg) along with other neuro support based on urine testing from ND/MD because I was still a bit depressed (how would I know?  I've only known depression, and I thought most of my depression abated going gf).   While most of my symptoms abated going gluten-free, I was and am still trying to overcome fibromyalgia.   Fibro: lack of energy.  Muscle fatigue.  Actually, for years I had a-fib on and off.  Sometimes it was my thyroid (I have Hashimoto's, and it was in range at the time of the MI, though they didn't do a panel of labs), most of the time it wasn't.  

    The year before my MI I went to cardiologist and I told him when I ate dairy (I'd gone from Yoplait full of rBGH at- the-time & sugar, to organic Greek full-fat plain) I had palpitations.  "Is it the calcium?" I asked.  "No, but here's an Rx for statins, hmm, though they'll exacerbate your fibro... How about some beta-blockers?"  I said I'd look into it (throwing the script into the trash).   I wore the Holter monitor and took EKGs, etc.  End of appt and relationship.  I continued to try to research online the best I could.

    The day before my first 5k, I was in a weird place emotionally - anxious.  I ate and couldn't fill myself.  I had 3,200 calories where I usually eat between 1,500-1,800.  I considered it "carb loading" before the race even though I never researched what that really meant (too busy researching everything else).  Here's my food log for the day before the MI:

    Bfast: Stonyfield cream on top plain full fat yogurt w/strawberries, blueberries, banana, flax meal, Member's Mark gf Spinach Asiago sausage.
    Lunch: Stonyfield gf English muffin, 3.25oz gf deli turkey, 8g butter.
    Dinner:  2 Amy's gf cheese enchilada dinners, 2 mangoes
    Snacks:  46g (unpopped) organic popcorn & 1 stick butter, 1 banana, 20g sunflower seeds, decaf coffee w/15g heavy whip cream.  I was about a month into going caffeine-free.
    Processed carbs:  148g, Fruit/other carbs: 154g Total:  302g
    Fat:  184g
    Protein: 101g
    Fiber: 39g

    My cholesterol at the time of MI:  
    TC: 206  
    Tri’s: 74  
    HDL: 49  
    LDL: 142
    A1C: 5.5 which translates to an avg bg 111
    BG: 118 (I'd been doing morning fasting tests, and it was hovering around 100, and I knew that wasn't good - hence the 5k.  I'd been walking for years though I was struggling to be consistent w/energy to exercise, something not uncommon w/fibro sufferers.)  
    BP: 150/82
    hsCRP: 3 (down from 6 which was down from 11 or 12 ~a year before)
    Heterozygous for Factor V Lieden discovered when I had a Boston Heart Lab cholesterol study ~a year before.  
    It was May, overcast, and not overly hot outside, more like the mid-60s - ideal even.

    Thyroid lab early May:  TSH .7
    Vitamin D:  tba. I have to look it up, but I have a history of tracking it and supplementing; it has been above 40 for years at least.  It's currently 65.

    I had one cup of water before the race.  After the race I ate a banana and 4 c water (+ water provided via Dixie cups along the route which were a pittance).  I was red faced and hot.  I drove home to take a long, HOT magnesium bath, and went to bed due to fatigue.  I don't remember if I drank more water, or much more than that.  I was actually having the heart attack that night, but at the time I didn't realize it.  I awakened around 5 a.m. from a long, unfit sleep, even though EXHAUSTED.  I tried to eat a sweet potato for bfast but had anxiety - I had a bite or so, but kept putting the fork to my mouth and down to the plate.  I had a hard time catching my breath.  My left arm felt like a blood pressure cuff was stuck on inflate.  I called doctor neighbor who didn't answer, then called out-of-state husband who told me to take an aspirin.  I hadn't thought of it.  Oh dear - I had to find a gf aspirin, which I luckily had some expired gf baby aspirin, and took one.  In 20 minutes it was lessening my arm pain.  

    I got to the ER, and THEN had to navigate the health care system as to what gluten was.  They thought I was crazy to worry if they're high dose aspirin or sublingual nitro had gluten - this, from two nurses with "IBS" ... the cardiologist has a regimen of drugs to give prior to the heart cath and I had them looking into the gluten ... the hospital DID have a gf menu (wonders!), but got the order wrong a few times and had to redo the meals.  I'm so glad I had my wits about me.  I lost two pounds in the hospital eating strictly Paleo. ;0)

    A few months prior to this, I'd seen a hematologist to figure out my mysterious leg pains.  Most of my fibro pain went away with gf diet change, trying to balance my hormones, TRYING to get more sleep, exercise, etc.  But I couldn't shake the pain in my largest muscles.  I'd read about rhabdomyolysis and asked him to do a CK test as a base for when I wasn't in pain.  Sure enough, it was normal.   Whenever I'd try to jog hard I'd get horrible pain in my legs which took about 5-6 days to recover.  There were a few times I exercised so hard they seized up, esp the day after and it was all I could do to get to the bathroom - sitting was an ordeal!   It wasn't normal for as long as I'd been exercising, to have this pain.  I know people who run and never have pain, so it bothered me I had this and couldn't push harder.  

    Sure enough after the 5k my quads were killing me.  The ER checked my CK, CK-MB, and troponin.  All were elevated.  When I brought up my theory about fibro and CK to the cardiologist he said everyone's CK goes up after exercise.   What am I to think?  Am I naive?  My heart cath was clear.  I was given marching orders to followup with my GP.  He told me to take a baby aspirin daily, but I'm trying to heal a leaky gut and don't do that.  I have taken fish oil again non-stop though.  

    I read about dysautonomia, rhabdo/dehydration, hypoglycemia, and electrolyte imbalance.  I can't help but think my lack of energy had something to do with my heart attack.   I contacted a neurologist who said he didn't believe in fibro, and then tested/probed my muscles (they were responsive).  

    Then I heard a podcast between Dr. Rosedale by Jimmy Moore.  Dr. Rosedale said (my words) that saturated fat covers your cell and energy can't get in (you need a balance of fats for cell membrane integrity).  Well, I'd been unbalanced.  I took a special, new blood test* and found my body reacts to dairy fat like gluten (which is hard on the adrenals therefore pushing cortisol? - my thoughts).  

    I quit dairy completely and my daily, constant nagging quad/ham leg pain went away, I sleep better, my palpitations went away, my depression got, yet again, better, AND I lost 25 lbs EASILY (which is not something to which I'm accustomed).  

    FWIW, I am very lactose TOLERANT.   When you hear about giving up dairy in the celiac community, it's often because a person is lactose intolerant not because of other food intolerance symptoms.   I was stubborn in giving up dairy because I was dependent on the negative drug-like effect it had on me.  I STILL crave it now and then, too.  You don't realize it until you give it up completely: not 90%, not 99%, but 100%.

    I am just now trying a boot camp and have better exercise tolerance; my pain is still more exaggerated but I recover in time to exercise again in two days.  

    Thanks for letting me share my story, and I appreciate all that you contribute to the awareness of heart health.  I've been a reader since 2006.

  • jhailstone

    1/16/2012 8:24:26 PM |

    I don't think wheat is that bad. If you have been eating a lot of white flour products then you can become gluten sensitive. But, if you use sprouted wheat bread and find out about wheat grass juice, you can have awesome health. I think it is the GMO wheat to watch out for the most.

  • Dotslady

    1/16/2012 8:47:34 PM |

    oops, forgot:
    * Cyrex Labs Array 4 for Cross-Reactive Foods, info here:  http://bit.ly/thedrxreactivitypdf or www.thedr.com (Gluten World tab).

    I responded to "milk butyrophilin" which is a milk fat protein.  Upon Googling around, I find it's associated with Multiple Sclerosis (http://bit.ly/ze5xOI).  I have enough autoimmune diseases, and will continue on my happy Paleo path.

  • Dotslady

    1/16/2012 9:11:44 PM |

    Sorry, one more thing:  I am a slow caffeine metabolizer which apparently makes me more prone to heart attack:  http://bit.ly/zbc8L0 (even though I'd been off caffeine for a month or so, I thought it was interesting).

  • Joanna

    1/16/2012 10:54:01 PM |

    Gluten is gluten, whether it is in white flour or whole wheat or several other grains like barley.  Ask anyone who is gluten sensitive or a full blown celiac - and I know several,  any gluten will make them very sick.  It is a protein that their body cannot digest.  And it doesn't matter whether it is from GMO wheat or not.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/17/2012 1:03:51 AM |

    Hi Dotslady,
    For seratonin's (5HT) 16 different receptors to work they have to take routes that are paths which result in an increase in Calcium (Ca++) in that cell interior (cytoplasm).  Seratonin is an amine molecule. In humans there are 9 different trans-glut-aminase enzymes that when turned on by Ca++ binding  can also process the amine seratonin.

    "Seraton-ylation" is the result of action by trans-glut-aminase enzymes causing seratonin metabolites that then interact with other cellular processes. Thus "seraton-ylation" of fibronectin results in more smooth muscle cells being produced & in another relevant instance induces platelets to put out proteins that foster coagulation.

    2007 Japan  researcher  Miyazaki, et.al. (J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 2007 Apr;49(4):221-227) blocked seratonin & relieved symptoms of peripheral artery disease (PAD). Leg pains you suffer may be  PAD endothelial dysfunction from too much Ca++ influx into muscle cell's cytosol. And your 5HTP (precusor of seratonin) supplementation could be contra.-indicated.

    Dairy has tryptophan & the calcium needed to process it into seratonin; yet your doctor told you dairy's calcium content was not the problem. Your depression bio-chemistry suggests altered seratonin metabolism. One's genetic variants of seratonin routing pathways are a jumble of factors, including particulars of calcium (ie: calcium channels in that cell's membrane & the site of stored Ca++ already inside that cell ); all modulated by seratonin reception peculiarities.

    Your blood pressure of 150/82  may be due to "seraton-ylation" of fibronectin proliferating too many arterial cells (hyper-plasia) leading to stiffer blood vessel making for more tension (hyper-tension) as lcse ideal  contraction/rebound.(for geeks: 5HT2a receptor & transglutaminase induce serotonylation of a GTPase RhoA affecting proteasome's down of GTPase in a way that upregulates Akt thereby engendering proliferation of arterial smooth muscle cells resulting in diminished contraction capacity). Breathing problem you described is also precisely researched as  part of the "seraton-nylation" sequel involving trans-glutaminase using seratonin as an amine, not a hormone.

    Normally people with elevated seratonin in circulation have a natural protective response whereby the number of seratonin receptors perched waiting in the cell membrane is reduced. But your vascular smooth muscle cells actually seem over receptive to seratonin & you've been innocently topping up with 100mg 5HTP daily (how long?) .

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/17/2012 2:28:25 AM |

    I think you will find a hailstorm of opposition to that notion, jhail.

    I would invite you to read my book, Wheat Belly, that exposes modern wheat for the fraud it is.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/17/2012 2:32:18 AM |

    Wow, Dots.

    A revealing story. I'm glad you found your answer . . . despite your doctors.

    Yes, dairy is a big problem for select people. I pick on wheat because it is a HUGE problem. But, for some, dairy can be a substantial second.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/17/2012 2:34:47 AM |

    Yes, it is, Conan.

    I can tell you that your doctor is reading the commentary and editorials in the medical journals and what we call "throwaways," the low-grade magazines that physicians are sent that are really thin disguises for advertising. It means he is not reading the primary literature, nor gaining an experience, nor is he thinking. He is simply regurgitating the superficial thinking of those who write these pieces. These pieces tend to be CYA with a slant towards drugs.

    We are making progress, but it is painfully slow!

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/17/2012 2:42:10 AM |

    Informally, Teresa, there are approximately 1000 patients in the office who follow the diet, about 300 who do not. (The rest have non-coronary syndromes that are not relevant.) This was not a comparison to a population outside the office.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/17/2012 2:43:03 AM |

    Hi, Anne-

    Yes, but you have come a long way, much on your own intelligence, strength of character, and persistence!

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/17/2012 2:43:59 AM |

    No.

    I meant myocardial "infraction."

    It was a joke.

  • Craig

    1/17/2012 7:52:43 AM |

    Even if you're lactose intolerant, milk in the US and Europe contains mainly A1 casein, while milk in Africa and Asia contains A2 casein. If anyone can't live without dairy, they should try to make sure they get it from an A2 cow such as a Guernsey.
    More info: http://www.betacasein.org/?p=heart-disease

  • Galina L

    1/17/2012 3:01:17 PM |

    @ Might,
    I noticed that people differ by how much they need to eat milk products. I don't  particularly care about anything made out of milk with the exception of butter and heavy cream for my coffee, even cheese (I eat it anyway because I keep buying it for other family members, but I would always choose some deli meat over a cheese) Does it mean their preference may depend on which path their serotonin takes? Some people actually crave such tasteless things like cottage cheese and plain yogurt.  It feels like there is some physiological difference besides taste preference..

  • jp

    1/17/2012 7:54:16 PM |

    Al- epic as usual. thanks so much for your posts. I don't have the background to truly comprehend much of what you say but I do love reading it. And it does help in an over-all general knowledge kind of way.
    Doc- Thanks again for taking the time. It's tragic that too many of us (myself included) don't find out about this stuff until AFTER we've been stented OR WORSE. I only got here by innocently trying to find out about possible side effects for the 80mg/day of lipitor  they put me on no questions asked or answered. I'm still pissed about the quality of care I get from any cardiology related people I've seen. Yet I'm still afraid to  not take my meds.

  • jhailstone

    1/17/2012 8:19:13 PM |

    In reply to the above comments - I'm aware that people who are gluten sensitive should stay away from all gluten products. However, for the rest of us, it's best to try to choose whole grain products. I have a friend who was a food science major, who told me that people become gluten sensitive from having eaten too many white flour products in their life. But, I know people who are gluten sensitive who can have sprouted grain breads and sprouted grain drinks. Everyone should avoid the GMO products though.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/17/2012 9:41:42 PM |

    Hi GalinaL,
    Others here have pointed out eating dairy give us a caseo-morph (ie: opiate like molecule) & this engenders an opiate brain response; so probably one's  real time response of contentment from eating dairy.  Then too dairy's tryptophan/calcium combo producing a bit of extra seratonin in popular legend is supposed to be how warm milk relaxes some into sleep.
    "Seraton-ylation" is less about seratonin in a nerve synapse.  It is  how different  tissue cells' internal processing is modified after interaction with the unique amine characteristics of seratonin  (as opposed to any neuro-endocrine functions of seratonin). Your idea of dairy lovers sounds more like a conditioned response anticipating caseo-morphs; much like Doc says modern wheat can condition some people's neuro-physiology to crave wheat.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/17/2012 11:52:59 PM |

    Hi jp,
    Depression is unfortunately common after MI (myocardial infarction); which you may know from fellow patients or first hand. Long term ( not short duration use) of anti-depressant drug SSRI (selective seratonin re-uptake inhibitors) is associated with less MI fatatlity. First this was assumed to be due to SSRIs side effect of  reducing platelets (ie: thinner blood circulating) but 2011 published research disproved that mechanistic linear explanation.

    The "Baltimore ECA Follow-up Study" (1981-1994) noted a higher incidence of heart disease for the depressed and those notably sad beyond +/- 2 weeks straight. Curiously, the depression link was more of a significant  factor for younger women followed up on. And most statistical reports concur that those with continual depression after an MI show an increased rate of fatality.

    Seems there is an interplay between one's  "seraton-ylation" ( seratonin amine metabolism) quirks in the heart muscle cells (or other tissues) and the useable seratonin neuro-endocrine metabolism in the brain cells. I have a simplified explanation for this paradox (SSRI= good; yet seraton-ylation = risky) ; but nuances aren't detailed here & I may (!) be mistaken.

    In true depression seratonin isn't performing normally in nerve synapses (ie: seratonin plucked back from the synapse action site too fast, precisely what re-uptake inhibitors slow down) so there is no need to contribute so many seratonin molecules to building up a reserve pool of seratonin for nerves to have ready to put into action (ie: pool always full enough since seratonin just pulled back in right away; or seratonin rarely even leaves pool to action site). This under-functioning leaves the depressed individual without the normal programming prioritizing seratonin  for nerves. In a sense their seratonin  may be more readily programmed to be used in non-nerve situations (ex: seraton-ylation leading to excess calcium in heart cell) in that individual.

    The prolonged use of drug SSRI (ie: keeps seratonin lingering in the nerve synapse) indirectly favors seratonin getting put into the back-up nerve seratonin pool. The nerve cells in due time  register  they can/need to top up with seratonin. This is a variation of  "use it , or lose it" - and the individual re-programs to "fill" the nerve seratonin pool  with an accompanying down-shift of  some of the less important "seraton-ylation" farther away from the brain.

    Unfortunately, not everyone's genetics will be able to re-organzize to prioritize nerve dynamic. Some might be stuck favoring  "seraton-ylation" in vascular smooth muscle cells, no matter how long the SSRI make the nerve seratonin pools ideal to orientate seratonin programs around.

  • Galina L

    1/18/2012 1:23:27 AM |

    Thank you.

  • PHK

    1/18/2012 5:39:45 AM |

    Mighty-Al,
    this is the 1st time i heard that angina as "pre-conditioning" of MI hence improving the survival/recovery rate!
    your other comment equally awesome
    thanks!

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/18/2012 6:39:00 PM |

    Hi PHK,
    Pre-conditioning phenomena can be from other triggers other than occlusion of heart (ischemia). In ischemia the heart cell(s) affected tries to cope in quick time by instigating  the 1st stage(s) of pre-conditioning. This last for up to 3 hours. (The dynamics other than mitochondria Potassium, mtKatp, are quite convoluted.)

    Then there is a delayed 2nd stage while that cell tries to switch over to put out the altered proteins that will act to limit any damage (minimize extent of infarct). This requires enough time for  that cell nucleus to get working on new program of suitable proteins ; the cell nucleus can preventatively shut down for hours without that cell dying.

    Ideally after 12 hours the last stage of  pre-conditioning kicks  into gear and that gives cardio-protection for up to 3-4 days. This span of  protection corresponds to statistic of hospitalized myocardial infarction (MI) patients who had episode of angina 1-3 prior showing better prognosis.
    Once the 2nd (late) of pre-conditioning in effect a lot of the benefit is from greater mitochondrial anti-oxidant levels up and running. This MnSOD keeps nitric oxide (NO) from being depleted by interactions with the reactive oxygen (ROS) on the loose as the heart cell tries to get back to using oxygen inside that cell normally.

    ACE inhibitor drugs & dietary providers of that same inhibition (ex: mycelial/fungal fermented soy bean ACE inhibiting hydrolized by-products like miso and japanese "touchi"- black soy bean  enbedded in aspergillus  oryzae +/- 1 year) afford protection from infarct damage via molecular action just like 2nd stage pre-conditioning does. They do this by acting on the bradykinin molecules a challenged heart puts out; and then downstream there is more MnSOD available to take on the ROS load in order to not waste NO in reactions with those ROS.  

    Exercise benefit to the heart is partly because it increases mitochondrial MnSOD; creating a predisposition for late stage pre-conditioning. One of the paradox of exercise is that it induces more inflammation molecules. The cytokines TNF-alpha & IL-1B acting in synergy (not stand alone drivers) induce cascades downstream that make muscles put out more MnSOD.

    "Warm-up Angina" is a long recognized phenomena which is akin to an exercise ischemia. The push from one's resting heart wave and subsequent time recuperating  are suggested to be a version of  early stage pre-conditioning. This conditions one so that there is more time before same amount of exercise would drive you to hit an ischemia challenge; and also one would have to get hit by a greater degree of oxygen drop to trigger any ischemia challenge. The plasticity of the heart gets trained.

  • Joanna

    1/18/2012 9:14:27 PM |

    Another cause of post MI depression was pointed out to me by a friend who was familiar with the drugs prescribed after an MI.  One of the most common is a beta blocker which is designed to lower blood pressure and slow down the heart (I believe I got that right), so that the heart can heal.  One of the side effects (which nobody mentioned when prescribing the drugs) is that they make you feel physically lethargic due to the decrease in heart rate which can then lead to a perception of being depressed (rather than the type of serotonin related depression AL was talking about) because you don't feel like doing your usual level of activity, you may not even feel like getting off the couch - and you may not even realize why!  The lack of information about what to expect and the side effects of all the various drugs used was astounding.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/18/2012 11:31:10 PM |

    Permit me to revisit Dotslady's myocardial infarction (MI, heart attack):
    marathon over & by 5 a.m. she  suspects an MI. Thus, after  usual interlude of 12 hours any 1st phase of pre-conditioning did not manifest enough (any?) 2nd phase pre-conditioning to prevent her hospitalization for MI.
    She had labored breathing after 12 hours instead. Pulmonary artery smooth muscle has the enzyme trans-glut-aminase II in between it's elastin & collagen "cables" layers.
    The pulmonary artery cells' seraton-ylation (via trans-glut-aminase II) make for a version of  contraction (calcium influx & possibly cyto-skeletal filament actin alters). The increased resistance forced her pulmonary artery to struggle (labor) just to keep up with the base line need for oxygenated blood by the brain & vital organs.
    Nitric oxide (NO) is capable of influencing the trans-glut-aminase enzyme and even keeps less amount of that enzyme being  deployed. But without the 2nd phase of pre-condtioning's MnSOD too much NO is busy being wasted interacting with ROS. And considering how Prozac (fluoxetine, traditionally used as a brain SSRI seratonin tweaker) inhibits trans-glut-aminase II enzyme we can see how an appropriate doseage of it (ie: enough fluoxetine drug to infuse relevant tissue cells other than the brain) helps in panic/anxiety to relieve breathing. Prozac blunts the ability of seraton-ylation to go forward in the pulmonary artery by an additional independant avenue than how it is otherwise acting in the brain.
    Looks like Dotslady's dys-functional seratonin (ex: depression) hard wiring apparently did let some pulmonary artery seraton-ylation go forward after 12 hours. And then elsewhere seraton-ylation seems to have progressively gotten worse in some cardiac artery smooth muscle cells adding to the occlusion afflicting (attack) her heart muscle myocyte cells.
    She is even a young, doctor guided & low-carb exerciser. Which suggests to me that seratonin quirks in some individuals can unfortunately over-ride the ability to get into play the 2nd phase of pre-conditioning.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/19/2012 5:52:36 PM |

    Dr. Davis gave succinct MI advice (above) : "...supplement iodine and correct any thyroid dysfunction...." Just in case anyone misses that connection to my layman comments  I'll specify the relevance.
    Low thyroid has (for decades) been clinically  associated with depression & Doc  is very concerned with adult onset hypo-thyroid. Examples of Prozac (fluoxetine) were given because drugs illustrate the seratonin factor.
    My references to SSRI anti-depressant drugs  do not negate Doc's protocol for preventing MI.  Part of his clinical success may be how protocol limits adverse seraton-ylation.

  • PHK

    1/20/2012 8:58:42 AM |

    Might,
    awesome! thanks!
    pam

  • Dotslady

    1/20/2012 7:26:42 PM |

    Hi Might o'chroni AL:  
    I appreciate your response, and I understood a lot of it.  I will reread it to understand more as time goes on.  FYI: the date of the heart attack was May 16, 2010.  

    I had to look up my notes on how long I took the 5-HTP.  I took a formulary supplement: Travacor by Neuroscience (http://bit.ly/zhayn2), which I understand from my MD/ND had 100mg of 5-HTP for about 5 months.  

    When I took my first dose it alleviated my leg pains(yay!), but I had side effect of a piercing headache in the back of my cerebellum area for a few hours while awakening, and in the morning.  However, after that few hours of pain, I was jubilant because I felt a sense of contentment I'd never felt before.  MD/ND told me to cease the supplement for a week, then titrate the dose to prevent the headaches.  I learned serotonin is also in your cerebellum, and even your eyes.  When I titrated the dose I never got back the lack of leg pain, nor the sense of contentment.

    Anyway, I continued taking them, and by the time I had the heart attack, I was up to 2 pills.  By May 10, I'd added L-tryptophan (Jarrow, 500mg) for about 3 weeks with no effect, so I stopped that, and then added 50mg 5-HTP.  I noted I slept somewhat better.  That was for about 6 days before the heart attack.  I made no note of it, but I may have even tried taking 2-50mg 5-HTP for a few nights trying to sleep better.  

    All the while, all I had to do was give up dairy.  At your suggestion, I've looked into PAD, but can't imagine it as I associate it with calf pain.  I will bring it up with my doctor nonetheless.  Thank you again for your response.  

    Dr. Davis:

    I agree.

  • Dotslady

    1/20/2012 8:03:16 PM |

    If that were true, would babies have celiac disease?  Or is that because their parents ate too much gluten?  

    Having an HLA-DQ gene predisposes a person to autoimmune disease.  Even then there are people without the genes we KNOW about for celiac in particular, HLA-DQ2 and HLA-DQ8, who don't tolerate gluten.  Up to 80% of the population has at least one HLA gene according to Dr. Fine of www.enterolab.com.   Approx. 30% of people of European descent have celiac genes in particular.  Autoimmune disease is triggered by stress (psychological or physical, chronic or sudden), virus, surgery, or pregnancy (which are all stresses to the body).  It's also triggered by eating gluten - whole grain or otherwise.  I wonder if you have the gene, or have stress in your life.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/21/2012 12:06:25 AM |

    Hi Dotslady,
    Your 5HTP supplement link shows it includes taurine. Taurine is pretty basic - yet your genetics seem to challenge a few basics.
    Since  published in 1997 "Taurine Depletion, a novel mechanism for cardioprotection from ischemia" (see AJP-Heart, Oct. 1997; vol.273, No,4:H1956-H1961) has  influenced  research (2001 example is http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/298/3/1167.full).
    Anyway, you took 5-HTP supplement with added in taurine. Taurine can accumulate in a heart cell  myocyte provoking unwanted conditions.
    Beta-alanine molecule (which can not build up residually in a cell) is the crucially protective end-product from the Meditteranean Diet's high % of poly-amines per calorie of food volume ingested. Ignobly named, spermine, spermidine & putrescene are key poly-amines that we mammals can process into  Beta-alanine, which is what  counter-acts excess taurine in cells & thus protects heart muscle (ie: why Med Diet is heart healthy despite the dietician "No-No" items eaten) .

  • Peggy Holloway

    1/21/2012 1:56:47 AM |

    I got it!

  • Runner2012

    1/23/2012 5:07:55 PM |

    Dr Davis:

    I've been supplementing with Vitamin D3 for the last couple of years since a test revealed a level of 31 ng/dL. I'm now at 48 ng/dL. However I saw this recent finding that is of concern to me:

    American Journal of Cardiology
    Volume 109, Issue 2 , Pages 226-230, 15 January 2012
    Relation Between Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and C-Reactive Protein in Asymptomatic Adults (From the Continuous National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001 to 2006)

    "In conclusion, from this cohort of asymptomatic adults, independent of traditional cardiovascular risk factors, we observed a statistically significant inverse relation between 25(OH)D at levels <21 ng/ml and CRP. We found that 25(OH)D at a level ≥21 ng/ml is associated with an increase in serum CRP. It is possible that the role of vitamin D supplementation to reduce inflammation is beneficial only among those with a lower serum 25(OH)D."

    http://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002-9149%2811%2902748-2/abstract

  • sete

    1/23/2012 5:47:20 PM |

    Runner2012,

    The references for that article might give you some more helpful information. I thought these were good for adding more perspective to the study and its conclusions;

    Michos ED, Streeten EA, Ryan KA, Rampersaud E, Peyser PA, Bielak LF, et al. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels are not associated with subclinical vascular disease or C-reactive protein in the old order Amish . Calcif Tissue Int . 2009;84:195–202;

    Pittas AG , Harris SS , Stark PC , Dawson-Hughes B . The effects of calcium and vitamin D supplementation on blood glucose and markers of inflammation in nondiabetic adults . Diabetes Care . 2007;30:980–986;

    Jorde R , Sneve M , Torjesen PA , Figenschau Y , Gøransson LG , Omdal R . No effect of supplementation with cholecalciferol on cytokines and markers of inflammation in overweight and obese subjects . Cytokines . 2010;50:175–180.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/31/2012 2:33:00 AM |

    This was a flawed study with only so much potential to extract conclusions. The design of the study makes it hypothesis-generating, at best.

  • Lee

    2/29/2012 10:40:04 PM |

    Your doctor isn''t current. You are better informed than he is.
    I''d find a new doctor.

  • dotslady

    6/21/2012 4:36:11 PM |

    Dear Dr. Williams,

    An update:  I figured out my fibro pain source:  I'm amine intolerant (histamine and likely tyramine - I'm working on an elimination diet).  I was on to something about the dairy, but it's more about fermented dairy, i.e. yogurt.  If you look at the diet journal I shared from the day before my heart attack, it was full of histamine:  yogurt, strawberries, blueberries, banana, sausage, deli turkey, frozen meals w/cheese and spicy tomato/enchilada sauce, mangoes (I know now if I have two that it's one too many), sunflower seeds.  Histamine levels fluctuate w/dose ingested and what the body can clear/process.  There's no testing in the USA that I know of for the enzymes responsible for clearing histamine (DAO and NMNT), hence the next best Rx: elimination diet.  My recent serum histamine and tryptase level was in normal lab range, but as I know from gluten intolerance this is not reason to not try diet.  I have joggled three days in a row 6.5 miles and without pain!   I asked my cardiologist at my annual checkup if histamine could have caused my heart attack.  He said he hadn't heard of it.  I know there are histamine receptors on the heart.  Yes, I've tried anti-histamines (don't work), and I've used with SOME affect a product called Histame.  Like with celiac disease I didn't have the "usual" GI symptoms.  My symptom would have been migraines .. in my LEGS (not my head); and I have two distinct pains - 1) hamstring aching and sometimes the striated muscles feel like taught piano strings, and 2) aching like a pushed and pulsating bruise above my left knee.  The more histamine I ingest the pain grows to the right leg (the hamstring pain always seems to start in the right hams).  Fermented foods cause the bruise-type ache above the knees; palpitations, and ankle edema (exacerbated by stress - always starts in the left leg and the more histamine I ingest it moves then also to the right ankle).  Too strenuous exercise is a stress btw.  Emotional stress also causes left ankle edema.  Could exercise stress, food allergy stress, emotional stress cause my heart attack?  I think so for me anyway.  I would REALLY appreciate your cardiologist thoughts about this as it affects 1-5% of the population (like celiac/gluten intolerance), and they don't know.  Since we have mast cells all over our body, everyone's symptoms are different.   Typical symptoms for histamine intolerance involve the GI or migraine/headaches, but until I read something about palpitations I never considered it.   DAO enzyme is made within a healthy intestinal mucosa.  I remember having these symptoms the year my Hashimoto's was dx in 1996 and attributing it to hypothyroidism.   I recently had a repeat Cyrex Labs Array 2 Leaky Gut test to assess my healing.  My first test I was still leaky, and this year it's mostly within normal limits.   I'm healing with gluten/grain/dairy/egg white/corn/legume/mostly nightshade  free diet (I have recently reintroduced potatoes, unfortunately that also includes chips!).  I'm experimenting w/elimination diet.   The crux of this?  Gluten damaged my gut and my health steadily went downhill.  I'm on the mend and excited for the first time since my celiac dx in 2006.  Thanks - have been reading your book - it's a great book!

  • dotslady

    6/21/2012 4:50:27 PM |

    edit to correct:  the second histamine enzyme acronym is HNMT not HMNT as written above.  It stands for Histamine N-methyltransferase (I've also read it as HMT).  DAO is diamine oxidase.  http://bit.ly/daohistamine

  • Dairy infraction | Youtoobelong

    9/24/2012 12:33:51 AM |

    [...] Myocardial infraction | Track Your Plaque BlogJan 15, 2012 … 44 Responses to Myocardial infraction … I meant myocardial “infraction.” …. I’ve wanted to ask you to write about dairy and the heart since my … [...]

Loading

Add Boston Globe to the list of heart scan blunders

Yet another piece of mass media misinformation hit the airwaves today. This time it's not from the New York Times or the LA Times, both of which have previously mangled the issues surrounding heart scans. This time it's from the Boston Globe.

In an article titled What is a calcium scan for heart disease, and who should undergo the test?, the report states:

". . . calcium scans may not be a good idea, or prove terribly useful, for most people. For one thing, the scans expose a patient to significant radiation - equivalent to roughly 50 chest X-rays" said Dr. Warren Manning, chief of noninvasive cardiac imaging at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center."

As many before him, Dr. Manning is confusing two tests: CT coronary angiography and CT heart scanning. Perhaps we can't blame him: This technology has had its weakest following in the northeast, for reasons not entirely clear to me. (In fact, Track Your Plaque followers have had the greatest struggle obtaining heart scans in that part of the country.) Nonetheless, you'd think he'd have his simple facts straight before talking to the press. Unfortunately, hospital public relations departments will usually just grab whoever they can willing to talk to the press--regardless of their expertise or lack of.


The story goes on to say:

. . ." it's not clear what to do with the results from a calcium scan. If you have diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or a family history of heart disease, you already know - or should know - that you are at increased risk of heart problems and should lower these risk factors. So, a calcium scan provides little additional information," Manning said.

"Moreover, even a high score doesn't necessarily mean that the calcified plaque in your arteries is obstructing blood flow, said Dr. Adolph Hutter, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital."

"The vast majority of people with high calcium tests don't have obstructions and they do fine long-term. So you'd have to test lots and lots of people to prevent one heart attack or sudden death," said Manning.

And if you get a low calcium score, a sign of little or no calcification of plaques, that's not very useful, either, because it could be wrong, or it could be right but lull you into believing you do not have to exercise and watch your diet, cholesterol, and blood pressure levels. "You can still be at risk even if your calcium test is negative," Hutter said.



It is truly shocking how little many (not all, thank goodness) of my colleagues really know about 1) heart scans, 2) coronary disease prevention, and 3) prevention in general. These same "experts" likely advocate high-dose statin drugs and low-fat diets for people at risk. They likely refer patients to the American Heart Association for diet advice and themselves obtain a lot of information from the pharmaceutical industry. The notion of identification, tracking, and purposeful reversal of coronary plaque is entirely foreign to this bunch.

"The vast majority of people with high calcium tests don't have obstructions and they do fine long-term. So you'd have to test lots and lots of people to prevent one heart attack or sudden death." Well, take a look at a graph from a database of 25,000 people undergoing heart scans then observed for several years afterwards:




You can see quite clearly from the curves that heart scan scores very clearly predict your future (if no preventive action is taken). The higher the score, the greater the likelihood of heart attack and death. How much clearer can it get?

The most recent addition to this literature is the PREDICT study which concluded:

Hazard ratios relative to CACS [coronary artery calcium scores] in the range 0-10 Agatston units (AU) were: CACS 11-100 AU, 5.4 (P = 0.02); 101-400 AU 10.5 (P = 0.001); 401-1000 AU, 11.9 (P = 0.001), and >1000 AU, 19.8 (P < 0.001).

In other words, a heart scan score of >1000 is associated with a 20-fold increased risk of cardiovascular events (without preventive efforts). That kind of predictive power and quantitative confidence simply cannot be squeezed out of blood pressure and cholesterol values.

How about the 2008 University of California-Irvine study from the New England Journal of Medicine (do the northeast docs even pay attention to something that is published in their own neighborhood?) that reported:

There were 162 coronary events, of which 89 were major events (myocardial infarction or death from coronary heart disease). In comparison with participants with no coronary calcium, the adjusted risk of a coronary event was increased by a factor of 7.73 among participants with coronary calcium scores between 101 and 300 and by a factor of 9.67 among participants with scores above 300 (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Among the four racial and ethnic groups, a doubling of the calcium score increased the risk of a major coronary event by 15 to 35% and the risk of any coronary event by 18 to 39%.

How about the Prospective Army Coronary Calcium (PACC) project (men average age 43 years):

"In these men, coronary calcium was associated with an 11.8-fold increased risk for incident coronary heart disease (CHD) (p = 0.002) in a Cox model controlling for the Framingham risk score. Among those with coronary artery calcification, the risk of coronary events increased incrementally across tertiles of coronary calcium severity (hazard ratio 4.3 per tertile)."

Calcium score provided additional information even after factoring in the Framingham risk score.

That's just a sample of the studies. There are a number more.

Add to these conversations the fact that, unlike reducing blood pressure or LDL cholesterol, the heart scan score is a quantification of the disease itself. It can also be tracked over time to gauge the success or failure of prevention efforts. To believe that blood pressure reduction or LDL cholesterol reduction is sufficient to eliminate risk is something only a fool would believe.



Contary to the above statements, the data are clear:

--The higher the heart scan score, the greater the risk. This has been demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt in at least a dozen published studies. In fact, heart scan scores outshine lipid/cholesterol values several-fold.

--A person with a zero score has a nearly zero risk for cardiovascular events over a 5-year timeline.

--Heart scans are the only quantitative test available of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. This means that they can be repeated to gauge progression or regression. Cholesterol does not do that. Stress tests do not do that.

--Heart scans are not the same as CT coronary angiography.

--The lack of "need" for a procedure does not equate to the absence of disease.

The power of heart scans is that they can uncover evidence for coronary atherosclerotic plaque 10 years before a cardiac disaster strikes. Witness Tim Russert's heart scan score of 210 in 1998 at age 48. 10 years later, you know what happened.

Beware the camipaign of misinformation and ignorance that continues that is hell-bent on maintaining the procedural status quo or locking us into a "drugs for all" mentality.

What's worse than sugar?

There are a number of ways to view the blood sugar-raising or insulin-provoking effect of foods.

One way is glycemic index (GI), simply a measure of how high blood sugar is raised by a standard quantity of a food compared to table sugar. Another is glycemic load (GL), a combination (multiplied) of glycemic index and carbohydrate content per serving.

Table sugar has a GI of 65, a GL of 65.

Obviously, table sugar is not good for you. The content of white table sugar in the American diet has exploded over the last 100 years, totaling over 150 lb per year for the average person. (Humans are not meant to consume any.)

What is the GI of Rice Krispies cereal, organic or not? GI = 82-- higher than table sugar. GL is 72, also higher than table sugar.

How about Corn Flakes? GI 81, GL 70--also both higher than sugar.

How about those rice cakes that many dieters will use to quell hunger? GI 78, GL 64.

How about Shredded Wheat cereal? GI 75, GL 62.

All of the above foods with GI's and GL's that match or exceed that of table sugar are made of wheat and cornstarch. Some, like Shredded Wheat cereal and rice cakes, don't even have any added sugar.

Stay clear of these foods if you have low HDL, high triglycerides, high blood sugar, or small LDL. Or, for that matter, if you are human.

Keep the eloquent words of New York University nutritionist, Marion Nestle, author of the book, Food Politics, in mind:

“Food companies—just like companies that sell cigarettes, pharmaceuticals, or any other commodity—routinely place the needs of stock holders over considerations of public health. Food companies will make and market any product that sells, regardless of its nutritional value or its effect on health. In this regard, food companies hardly differ from cigarette companies. They lobby Congress to eliminate regulations perceived as unfavorable; they press federal regulatory agencies not to enforce such regulations; and when they don’t like regulatory decisions, they file lawsuits. Like cigarette companies, food companies co-opt food and nutrition experts by supporting professional organizations and research, and they expand sales by marketing directly to children, members of minority groups, and people in develop countries—whether or not the products are likely to improve people’s diets.” ??

Are sterols the new trans fat?

By now, I'm sure you're well-acquainted with the hydrogenated, trans fat issue.

Hydrogenation of polyunsaturated oils was a popular practice (and still is) since the 1960s, as food manufacturers sought a substitute for saturated fat. Bubbling high-pressure hydrogen through oils like cottonseed, soybean, and corn generates trans fatty acids. These man-made fatty acids, while safe in initial safety testing, proved to be among the biggest nutritional mistakes of the 20th century.

Trans fatty acids have been associated with increased LDL cholesterol, reduction in HDL, oxidative reactions, abnormal rigidity when incorporated into cell membranes, and cancer. Trans fats still dominate many processed foods like chips, cookies, non-dairy creamers, food mixes, and thousands of others. They're also found prominently in fast foods.

Fast forward to today, and most Americans have become aware of the dangers of trans fats and many try to avoid them.

But I worry there is yet another substance that has worked its way into the American processed food cornucopia that has some potential for repeating the trans fat debacle: sterol esters.


Sterols are naturally-occurring oils found in vegetables, nuts, and numerous other foods in small quantities. Most of us take in 200-400 milligrams per day just by eating plant-sourced foods.

Curiously, the chemical structure of sterols are very similar to human cholesterol (differing at one carbon atom). Sterols, by not fully understood means, block the intestinal absorption of cholesterol. Thus, sterol esters, as well as the similar stanol esters, have been used to reduce blood levels of total and LDL cholesterol.

So far, so good.

The initial commercial products, released in the late 1990s, were Take Control (sterol) and Benecol (stanol), both of which were marketed to reduce cholesterol when 2-3 tbsp are used daily, providing 3400 – 5100 mg of sterol or stanol esters, about 10- to 20-fold more than we normally obtain from foods. Several clinical trials have conclusively confirmed that these products reduce cholesterol levels.

They do indeed perform as advertised. Add either product to your daily diet and LDL cholesterol is reduced by about 10-15%. In fact, in the original Track Your Plaque book, these products were advocated as a supplemental means of reducing LDL when other methods fell short.

In 2008, there are now hundreds of products that have additional quantities of sterol esters in them, such as orange juice, mayonnaise, yogurt, breakfast cereals, even nutritional supplements. Most of these products proudly bear claims like "heart healthy." Stanol esters have not enjoyed the same widespread application. (I believe there may be patent issues or other considerations. However, it's the sterols that are the principal topic here, not stanols.)

Now, here's where it gets a bit tricky. There is a rare (1 per million) disease called sitosterolemia, a genetic disorder that permits the afflicted to absorb more than the usual quantity of sterols from the intestine. While you and I obtain some amount of sterols from plant-based foods, absorption is poor, and we absorb <10% of sterols ingested. However, people with sitosterolemia absorb sterols far more efficiently, resulting in high blood levels of sterols that result in coronary disease and aortic valve disease, with heart attacks occurring as young as late teens or 20s. Treatment to block sterol absorption are used to treat these people.

There are also a larger number, though still uncommon (1/500) of people who have only one of the two genes that young people with sitosterolemia have. These people may have an intermediate capacity for sterol absorption.

Okay, so what does this have to do with you? Well, if you and I now take in 10-20 times greater amounts of sterol esters, do our blood levels of sterols increase?

Several studies now suggest that, yes, sterol blood levels increase with sterol ingestion. One study from Finland, the STRIP Study, showed that children who had double usual sterol intake increased blood levels by around 50%.

Similarly, a Johns Hopkins study in adults with only one of the genes ("heterozygotes") for sitosterolemia increased sterol blood levels by between 54-116% by ingesting 2200 mg of sterols added per day, despite reduction of LDL cholesterol levels.

Even people with neither gene for sitosterol hyperabsorption can increase their blood levels of sterols. But the crucial question: Do the blood levels of sterols that occur in unaffected people or in heterozygotes increase the risk of coronary heart disease? The answer is not known.

Despite the several clinical trials performed with sterol esters, all of them have examined LDL and total cholesterol reduction as endpoints, not cardiovascular events. It is conceivable that, while sterol esters reduce cholesterol, risk for heart disease is increased due to higher blood levels of sterols.

The question is not settled. For now, it is just a suspicion. But that's enough for me to steer clear of processed foods supplemented with these uncertain sterol esters. My previous recommendations for sterol ester products will be removed with the next edition of Track Your Plaque. Until we have solid evidence that there are no adverse cardiovascular effects of sterol esters, in my view they should not be part of anyone's heart-disease prevention program.

(The same argument does not seem to apply to stanol esters, such as that contained in butter-substitute Benecol, since stanol esters are not absorbed at all and remain confined to the intestine.)

The Diabetes Gold Rush

Lou came into the office. Clearly, his program had gone sour.

Lou had initially obtained wonderful control over his heart scan score of 1114, having reversed modestly in his first three years of effort through correction of his multiple causes (including low HDL, severe small LDL, Lp(a), and a diabetic tendency).

But Lou now came into the office red-faced and sporting a big bulging abdomen. Blood sugar? Now in the overtly diabetic range. Lou said that his primary care doctor had suggested that he start on three new medications (glucophage, injectable Byetta, and Actos) to control his blood sugar. His doctor also told him to increase his intake of fibers by eating more "healthy" breakfast cereals like Cheerios.

Lou had apparently done just that (added "healthy" fiber-rich foods) even before his doctor had suggested it. (Lou failed to remember the several conversations we'd had about healthy eating.) Unfortunately, Lou also failed to connect his increased intake of "healthy fiber-rich foods" and his growing abdominal girth (his "wheat belly").

Here's the dirty little secret: Much of the world wants you to be diabetic. It is the health gold rush of this century. "Go West, young man!"




To find out what I mean, you need only ask: Who profits when people become diabetic? That's easy:

The pharmaceutical industry--Diabetes is a booming growth industry, a source of tens of billions of dollars of revenue, poised for enormous growth as the population ages and gets fatter. It is common for a newly-diagnosed diabetic to be given new prescriptions for two or three drugs with a monthly cost of $300. Of course, the chronic nature of the disease make this far more profitable than, say, a two week course of antibiotics. Presently, 70 new drugs are under development.

Diabetes drug maker Novo Nordisk reported a 25% increase in revenues in 2007 from diabetic agents in the North American market, along with near $2 billion increase in profit for the year. Merck's recently-released DPP-4 inhibitor, Januvia, has already sold $668 million in 2007 and is growing rapidly.

The medical device and supply industry. Take a look at the Medtronic quarterly earnings report, detailing the breakdown of their record-setting quarterly revenue of $3.7 billion:

Diabetes revenue of $269 million grew 12 percent driven by sales
of consumables, the accessories required by insulin pump users, and
continuous glucose monitoring products. Revenue from international
sales grew 31 percent over the same quarter last year.


That's what I call a growth industry.

The processed food industry. The food industry is as big or bigger than the drug industry. ADM, Kraft, General Mills all have annual revenues in the $12-50 billion range. There are plenty of others.

When we're told, for instance, that Cheerios reduces cholesterol, we're not told that it skyrockets blood sugar or triggers small LDL. When we're sold whole wheat crackers, Cocoa Puffs (which the American Heart Asscociation says is heart-healthy), or granola bars, hunger is stimulated, impulse to eat more grows, blood sugar escalates, we get fat, we get diabetic. It's a simple formula.

So be aware that there is little incentive among corporate giants in the food, medical device, or drug industries to encourage behaviors that decrease the incidence of diabetes. In fact, there is enormous financial incentive to make sure that diabetes continues to grow at the startling rate it has over the last decade.

To be sure, the drug and medical device industry will also develop better tools to deal with diabetes and its complications. But the very best way to deal with diabetes is to not develop it in the first place.

What else is there?

This question comes up frequently:

Aren't there any alternatives to heart scans performed on a CT or EBT device?

Yes, there are.

First of all, heart scans are performed best on an electron-beam CT device (EBT) or a 64-slice multi-detector CT (MDCT) device. (While they are also obtainable through less-than-64 slice CT devices (e.g., 16 slices and less), I would advise against it because of the excessive radiation exposure and poor accuracy.) CT heart scans are not to be confused with now more popular CT coronary angiograms, which are performed on the same devices but require intravenous x-ray dye and many times more radiation.(See CT scans and radiation exposure and Heart scan frustration.) Heart scans currently form the basis for the Track Your Plaque program, a program of tracking plaque in the hopes of stopping or reversing the otherwise inevitable 30% per year increase.

Let's confine our discussion to people without symptoms, meaning people like you and me sitting at home, not in an emergency room having chest pain or other similar acute symptomatic presentation.

Among the other ways to uncover hidden coronary plaque:

--Heart catheterization--to yield a coronary angiogram. Yes, this does tell us whether coronary plaque is present. However, it is invasive, expensive, and crude. (I've performed 5000 over my career; they are crude, though useful, tools in acute settings like unstable symptoms or heart attack, a different situation.) Coronary angiography is also non-quantitative. While they provide a value like "40% blockage mid-way in right coronary" or "90% blockage in left anterior descending" they do not provide a trackable lengthwise index of total plaque volume. Identifying severe blockages in people with symptoms leads to stents, bypass surgery and the like, but it is not practical nor of long-term usefulness in apparently, healthy people without symptoms.

--Carotid ultrasound--Here's is where a lot of confusion comes from. Standard carotid ultrasound (U/S) performed in virtually every hospital and many clinics will yield crude qualitative results, e.g., "16-49% stenosis (blockage) in right internal carotid artery". The crude value range is because much of carotid U/S is based on flow velocities, not just direct visualization of the plaque itself ("2-D imaging). However, if carotid stenosis of any degree is identified, the likelihood of silent coronary plaque is much greater.

Limitations: The qualitative, non-quantitative nature of carotid U/S make it difficult to follow long-term in a precise way. Also, this is carotid plaque, not coronary plaque. It makes it very difficult to follow carotid plaque as an indirect means of tracking coronary plaque. The two arterial territories, carotid and coronary, do not track together: there are divergences in many people, with carotid plaque absent in some people with advanced coronary plaque, carotid plaque more susceptible to different risk factors than coronary. So carotid U/S is helpful for its own purposes, but not terribly helpful for coronary tracking.

How about carotid intimal-medial thickness (CIMT) obtained also with carotid U/S? CIMT is a useful index of bodywide atherosclerosis. CIMT is simply a measure not of plaque (and is measured in regions of the carotid artery away from plaque), but of the thickness of the lining of the carotid arteries. Everybody has a measurable CIMT, but it thickens as atherosclerosis grows. CIMT is a radiation-free test that takes several minutes.

Limitations: Hardly anybody does it outside of research protocols. I know of no hospital or clinic in my area that performs CIMT, though it is slowly being adopted in some centers. It is also difficult to rely on repeated tests, because there is substantial variation when one technologist or another performs it. CIMT is also a flawed index of coronary plaque. When CIMT is compared to heart scan scores, CT coronary angiography, or conventional coronary angiography, CIMT correlates about 60-70% with the degree of coronary atherosclerosis.

CIMT is therefore a useful test for research, but a distant 2nd choice--if you can obtain it.

--Ankle-brachial index (ABI)--ABI is a crude measure, simply a comparison of the blood pressure (obtained with a blood pressure cuff) in the legs divided by blood pressure in the arms. The ratio is called ABI. Any ABI <1.0, meaning less pressure in the legs compared to the arms, is indirectly indicative of advanced coronary disease. ABI is, in fact, a very powerful predictor of cardiovascular events. If ABI is <1.0, your future risk for heart attack is very high, even in the absence of symptoms.

Limitations: The vast majority of people with heart disease, even those having undergone stents or bypass surgery, have normal ABI's. Virtually all people with high heart scan scores have normal ABI's. In other words, ABI is a measure of very advanced atherosclerosis only.

--Stress tests--I lump all stress tests together in their various forms, e.g., stress thallium, stress Cardiolite, stress Myoview, persantine/adenosine Cardiolite, dobutamine echocardiography, etc. Stress tests are tests of coronary blood flow, not of plaque. Stress tests are useful in people with symptoms, like chest pain or breathlessness, since stress tests are provocative tests that can help determine whether reduced coronary blood flow is the cause behind a symptom, or whether hiatal hernia, esophagitis, gallstones, pleurisy, musculoskeletal causes, or some other process is behind symptoms.

Limitations: Stress test are virtually useless in people without symptoms. This is why people like Tim Russert and Bill Clinton, both without symptoms, underwent several (Russert 3, Clinton 5) nuclear stress tests---all normal. You know what happened to them. Stress tests do not reliably uncover hidden coronary plaque in people without symptoms. Stress tests are, like coronary angiograms, non-quantitative. They are normal or abnormal.


Outside of experimental settings, that's it.

You can probably see why I advocate CT heart scans for tracking plaque. I do not advocate heart scans because I sell them (I don't), because scan centers pay me to say these things (they don't, and in fact my relationship with my usual heart scan centers has become deeply contentious, though I still endorse the technology). I say that heart scans are superior because they are, in 2008, the only way to 1) identify and 2) track coronary plaque that is easy, safe, low-radiation, and reasonably priced (<$200 in Milwaukee at 5 centers).

The need for a technology that allows tracking of plaque, not just initial identification, is also an important distinction. People who've had some measure of atherosclerosis all catch on to this eventually. "Can I reverse it?" is an inevitable question once the disease is identified in some way. So a tool for tracking over time to gauge the success or failure of a program of prevention can be assessed.

Perhaps in 10 years, another technology will emerge as the preferred means to do the same, but better. If that proves true, we will convert to that technology. But today heart scans performed on CT heart scans are the only rational way to both detect, then track, coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Let's gamble with your health

Let's play a game.

I'm going to list some lipid patterns and you tell me whether or not the person with these values has heart disease.

Patient 1

Total cholesterol 150 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 75 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
Triglycerides 125 mg/dl


Patient 2

Total cholesterol 300 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 200 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 35 mg/dl
Triglycerides 325


Patient 3

Total cholesterol 300 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 100 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 25 mg/dl
Triglycerides 875 mg/dl



Let's say that any one of these profiles is yours. Should you be getting your affairs in order, preparing for your cardiac catastrophe? Should you demand a stress test from your doctor, hoping that it will shed some light on your dilemma? Should you go ahead and go to the all-you-can-eat rib restaurant, content that you will be attending your granddaughger's wedding in 2020 in full health?

If you can tell, you're a lot better at this than I am.

I provide consultation to other physicians and patients on complex hyperlipidemias in my area. In other words, if someone has a difficulty to manage lipid disorder, the doctor sends the patient to me.

Managing these wildly variable values is the easy part. Deciding whether or not heart disease is concealed within the patient . . . well, that's the hard part.

Let's take it a step further: Suppose all three profiles also have 50% of all LDL particles as the abnormal small particles. And they all have a lipoprotein(a) level of 50 mg/dl, an abnormally high level.

How about now: Can you tell whether any or all of these people have hidden heart disease?

What if they are 20 years old? Does that make a difference?

What if they are all females over 65 years--how about now?

If the only tool you have to divine the presence of hidden heart disease is a lipid panel, or even a lipoprotein panel, then the best you can manage is to hazard a guess based on statistical probability. You also assume that this "snapshot" represents the sorts of values someone has had for their entire lives. You cannot factor in the fact that the first person gained 60 lbs in the last three years since completing menopause. You can't factor in that patient 2 smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for 25 years, but quit 10 years ago.

It's also foolhardy to believe that every known cause of heart disease is currently identifiable and revealed by modern-day blood testing.

A heart scan is simply a means to quantify the sum-total of risk factors--causes--that have exerted an effect up until the moment of your scan. It will reveal the quantity of coronary atherosclerotic plaque present, regardless of whether you stopped smoking 20 years ago or lost 30 lbs last year.

For these reasons, nothing can replace the value of quantifying plaque: not cholesterol, not the Framingham risk calculation, not measures of small LDL or lipoprotein(a), not the presence or absence of symptoms. In 2008, the method of choice for measuring plaque remains a CT heart scan. Perhaps in 10 years it will be some other method.

As always, let me remind Heart Scan Blog viewers that I make this point NOT to sell heart scans, which I have no reason whatsoever to do. I say this because we require a tool to track this potentially fatal disease. We require a yardstick for tracking progression or regression. The only tool that suits these purposes in 2008 is a CT heart scan.

Who knows what

You know that cynical old saying:


It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

In other words, knowing the right person provides you strategic advantage in business, social advancement, etc.

In health, it was often true. Knowing who the better doctors were, for instance, in your city might provide you with access to better care.

Enter the Information Age. You now have access to medical information equal to that of your doctor. You now have access to patient discussions about doctors, their practices, their performance records. There is now a depth and breadth of information on health that was never available before.

I’d therefore turn the old saying into the new Health 2.0 version:


It’s not who you know, it’s what you know.


In health, information now reigns supreme, not knowing somebody else who has the right connections.

Positive: Everybody now theoretically has access to an equal amount of information, since you can access information on any topic just as easily as I can.

Negative: It puts more of the burden on you. If you screw up in health, perhaps you didn’t try to get the best information hard enough.

I love this new development, this emergence of empowerment in health. I call it self-directed health, the individual capacity to exert enormous influence over the quality of your healthcare.

This is obviously a work in progress. All the answers and tools for self-directed care, self-empowerment are not yet available, some haven’t even yet been imagined.

But they are coming.

“Too many false positives”

“Do you really think I need a heart scan?” asked Terry.

“My doctor said that heart scans show too many false positives. He says that many people end up getting unnecessary heart catheterizations because of them.”

At age 56, Terry was becoming increasingly frightened. His father had suffered his first heart attack at age 53, Terry’s paternal uncle had a heart attack at age 56, his paternal grandfather a heart attack at age 50.

Is this true? Do heart scans yield too many false positives, meaning abnormal results when there really is no abnormality?

No, it is not. What Terry’s doctor is referring to is the fact that, in the decades-long process that leads to heart attack, heart scans have the ability to detect early phases of developing coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Let’s take Terry’s case, for example. Given his family history, it is quite likely that he does indeed have coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Will it be detectable by performing a stress test? Probably not. In fact, Terry jogs and feels well while doing so. While a stress test abnormality that fails to reach conscious perception is possible, it’s fairly unlikely given his exercise routine.

Will Terry’s coronary atherosclerotic plaque be detectable by heart catheterization? Very likely. But why perform an invasive hospital procedure just as a screening test? Should a woman wishing to undergo a screening test for breast cancer undergo breast removal? Of course not.

Is waiting for symptoms a rational way to approach diagnosis of heart disease? Well, when symptoms appear, it means that coronary blood flow is reduced. Stents and bypass surgery may be indicated. The risk of heart attack and death skyrocket. Sudden death becomes a real possibility.

In the 30 or so years required to establish sufficient coronary plaque to permit the appearance of symptoms or the development of an abnormality detectable by stress testing, there were many years when the disease was early--too early to generate symptoms, too early to be detectable by stress testing.

That’s when heart scans uncover evidence for silent coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Should we call this a “false positive” just because it doesn’t also correlate with “need” for a catheterization, stent, bypass operation or result in heart attack within the next few weeks?

The detection of early plaque is just that: early disease detection.

Imagine, for instance, that the breast cancer that will grow into a palpable nodule or mass detectable by mammogram is detectable by a special breast scan 15 years before it becomes a full-blown tumor, metastasizing to other organs. What if effective means to halt that earliest evidence of cancer could put a stop to this devastating disease decades ahead of danger? Is this a “false positive” too?

In my view, this is the knuckleheaded thinking of the conventional practitioner: “Don’t bother me until you’re really sick.” Prevention is a practice that has become fashionable only because of the push of the drug industry. Nutrition is an afterthought, a message conceived through consensus of “experts” with suspect motivations and allegiances.

So, no, heart scans do not uncover “false positives.” They uncover early disease--true positives--years before it is detectable by standard tests or by the appearance of catastrophe. But that is the whole point: Early detection means getting a head start on prevention.

Do heart scans lead to unnecessary heart catheterizations? Yes, sadly they do. But not because heart scans are false positive. It happens because of unscrupulous or ignorant cardiologists who use the information wrongly. In my view, heart scans should NEVER lead directly to heart catheterization in an asymptomatic patient. Heart scans, as helpful as they are, do not modify the standard reasons for performing heart procedures.

If a car mechanic is dishonest and fixes a carburetor that didn't need fixing, should we condemn all car mechanics? No, of course not. We only need to develop the means to weed out the bad apples. The same applies to heart scans.

Triglycerides divided by five

Here's a bit of lipid tedium that might nonetheless help you one day decipher the meaning of shifts in your cholesterol panel.

Recall from prior discussions that conventional LDL cholesterol is a calculated value. Contrary to popular opinion, LDL is usually not measured, but calculated from the Friedewald equation:

LDL cholesterol = Total cholesterol - HDL cholesterol - triglycerides/5

For the sake of simplicity, let's call total cholesterol TC; HDL cholesterol HDL, and triglycerides TG.

We've also talked in past how a low HDL makes calculated LDL inaccurate, sometimes wildly so. (See Low HDL makes Dr. Friedewald a liar.)

Here's yet another source of inaccuracy of the Friedewald-calculated LDL: any increase in triglycerides.

Let's say, for instance, that starting lipid panel shows:

TC 170 mg/dl
LDL 100 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
TG 100 mg/dl



You're advised to follow a standard low-fat, whole grain-rich diet advocated by "official" agencies (the diet I bash as knuckleheaded). Another panel a few months later shows:

TC 230 mg/dl
LDL 140 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
TG 200 mg/dl



(Obviously, I've oversimplified the response for the sake of argument. HDL would likely go down, LDL would change more depending on body weight, small LDL tendencies, and other factors. You'd also likely get fat.)

Now your doctor declares that your LDL has gone up and you "need" a statin agent.

Nonsense, absolute nonsense.

What has really happened is that the increased dietary intake of wheat and other "healthy whole-grain foods" has caused triglycerides to skyrocket. LDL increases, in turn, by a factor of TG/5, or 40 mg/dl. Thus, LDL has been inflated by the triglyceride-raising effect of whole grains.

This is yet another reason why the standard lipid panel, full of hazards and landmines, needs to be abandoned. But calculated LDL in particular is an exercise in frustration.

Though the example used is hypothetical, I've witnessed this effect thousands of times. I've also seen many people placed on statin drugs unnecessarily, due to the appearance of a high LDL cholesterol that really represented increased TG/5, usually induced by an excessive carbohydrate intake, including those commonly misrepresented as healthy such as whole grains.

Who reads The Heart Scan Blog?

In the Heart Scan Blog, I am often guilty of speaking out loud of my varied thoughts on this crazy thing that we've created called the cardiovascular healthcare machine. But I discuss it in the context of asking "How could this be done better--better outcomes, more patient-friendly, more accessible . . . more do-it-yourself?

The last part is the part that throws most people. Do-it-yourself? My colleagues would claim I'm nuts, suggesting that coronary heart disease is something manageable by yourself. In the conventional pathway, after all, coronary disease is that unpredictable, poorly detected by standard tests, condition that then leads to heart catheterization, stents, bypass , and the like.

Several factors distinguish the readers of The Heart Scan Blog that surprised me:

--Nearly 60% are women
--There are a disproportionate number of Asian people. (Can someone explain this to me?)
--A great number have graduate degrees

I believe this tells me that The Heart Scan Blog appeals to a somewhat more sophisticated audience. This, to some degree, warms my heart, since it means that I've captured the attention of some people who may be more discriminating and thoughtful in their Internet surfing.

However, I also lament the fact that these conversations are not achieving the mainstream. After all,