Never saw a headline like this? Neither have I. That's because it doesn't happen.

Cholesterol doesn't harm, maim, or kill. It is simply used as a crude--very crude--marker. It is, in reality, a component of the body, of the cell wall, of lipoproteins (lipid-carrying proteins) in the bloodstream. It is used a an indirect gauge, a "dipstick," for lipoproteins in the blood to those who don't understand how to identify, characterize, and quantify actual lipoproteins in the blood.

Cholesterol itself never killed anybody, any more than a bad paint job on your car could cause a fatal car accident.

What kills people is rupture of atherosclerotic plaque in the coronary arteries. For all practical purposes, you must have atherosclerotic plaque in order for it to rupture (much like a volcano erupts and spews lava). It's not about cholesterol; it's about atherosclerotic plaque. Plaque might contain cholesterol, but cholesterol is not the thing itself that causes heart attack and death.

So why do most people obsess about cholesterol? Good question. It is, at best, a statistical marker for the possibility of having atherosclerotic plaque that ruptures. High cholesterol = higher risk for heart attack, low cholesterol = lower risk for heart attack. But the association is weak and flawed, such that people with high cholesterol can live a lifetime without heart attack, people with low cholesterol can die at age 43.The same holds true for LDL cholesterol, you know, the calculated value based on flawed assumptions about LDL's relationship to total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and VLDL cholesterol.

A crucial oversight in the world of cholesterol: There are many other factors that cause atherosclerotic plaque and its rupture, such as inflammatory phenomena, calcium deposition, artery spasm, hemorrhage within the plaque itself, degradative enzymes, etc., none of which are suggested by cholesterol measures.

But one observation has held up, time and again, over the past 40 years of observations on coronary disease: The greater the quantity of coronary atherosclerotic plaque, the greater the risk of atherosclerotic plaque rupture. An increasing burden of atherosclerotic plaque along the limited confines of coronary arteries, just a few millimeters in diameter and a few centimeters in length, is like a house of cards: It's bound to topple sooner or later, and the bigger it gets, the less stable it becomes.

If you are concerned about future potential for heart disease and heart attack, don't get a cholesterol panel. Get a measure of coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

After having my attentions pulled a thousand different directions these past 6 months, with the release of Wheat Belly and all the wonderful media attention it has attracted, I've decided to pick up here with a series of discussions about the fundamental issues important to the Track Your Plaque program and prevention and reversal of coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

I fear the discussions at times have drifted off into the exotic. This is great because this is how we learn new lessons, but we can never lose sight of the basics, else we risk losing control over this disease.

Imagine you've got a beautiful new car. You wax it, gap the spark plugs, rotate the tires, etc. and it looks brand-new, just like it came off the dealer's lot. 50,000 miles pass, however, and you realize you've forgotten to change the oil. Ooops! In other words, no matter how meticulous the attention to transmission, tires, and paint job, neglect of the most basic responsibility can ruin the whole thing. We can't let that happen with heart health.

If we propose to reverse coronary atherosclerotic plaque, we've got to have something to measure. First, it tells us whether we have atherosclerotic plaque in the first place, the stuff that accumulates and blocks flow and causes anginal chest pains, and ruptures like a little volcano and causes heart attacks. Second, it gives us something to track over the years to know whether plaque has grown, stopped growing, or been reduced. Without such a measure, you will be driving without a speedometer or odometer, just guessing whether or not you've gotten to your destination.

Of course, the conventional approach to heart disease and heart attack is not to track atherosclerotic plaque in your coronary arteries, but to track some distant "risk factor" for atherosclerotic plaque, especially LDL cholesterol. But LDL cholesterol is flawed at several levels. First, it is calculated, not measured. The nearly 50-year old Friedewald equation used to calculate LDL cholesterol is based on several flawed assumptions, yielding a value that can be 20, 30, or 50% inaccurate as a rule, only occasionally generating a value close to the real value. (No point in publicizing this problem, of course: Why compromise a $27 billion annual cash cow?) It also ignores the effect of diet. (No, cutting fat does not reduce LDL for real, only the calculated value. Cutting carbohydrates, especially wheat--"healthy whole grains"--slashes measured LDL values like NMR LDL particle number and apoprotein B.)

But all risk factors are, at best, snapshots of the situation at that moment in time. They change from day to day, week to week, month to month, year to year. If you do something dramatic in health, like lose 50 pounds, you can substantially change your risk factors values, like LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol. But you may not modify the amount of atherosclerotic plaque in your heart's arteries.

Measuring the amount of atherosclerotic plaque in your heart's arteries is, in effect, a cumulative expression of the effects of risk factors up until the moment of measurement.

There are several stumbling blocks, however, in the concept of measuring coronary atherosclerotic plaque. We cannot measure all the unique components of plaque, such as fibrous tissue like collagen, or degradative enzymes like collagenases, or inflammatory proteins like matrix metalloproteinase, or the debris of hemorrhage and inflammation. We struggle to contemporaneously mix in measures of bloodborne inflammation, coagulation and viscosity, and physiological phenomena of the artery itself, like endothelial dysfunction, medial (muscle) tone, and adventitial fat.

So we are left with semi-static measures of total coronary atherosclerotic plaque like coronary calcium, obtainable via CT heart scans as a calcium "score." No, it is not perfect. It does not reflect that moment's blood viscosity, it does not reflect the inflammatory status of the one nasty plaque in the mid-left anterior descending, nor does it reflect the irritating sheer effects of a blood pressure of 150/95.

But it's the best we've got.

If anyone has something better, I invite you to speak up. Carotid ultrasound, c-reactive protein, ankle-brachial index, stress nuclear studies, myoglobin, skin cholesterol, KIF6 genotype . . . none of them approach the value, the insight, the trackability of actually measuring coronary atherosclerotic plaque. And the only method we've got to gauge coronary atherosclerotic plaque that is non-invasive and available in 2012? Yup, a good old CT heart scan calcium score.

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.

Might-o’chondri-AL left this wonderful record of his lipoprotein experience in the comments to the last Heart Scan Blog post. It is a great example of what is achievable with diet and a few supplements . . . without drugs.

(A) Jan. 2011 1st ever NMR lipo-protein analysis was done after 4 months of consistent home food prep of pretty low fat (only olive oil and 1 tablespoon coconut oil daily) but plenty of whole wheat and half potatoes:
* LDL # of particles (P) = 1,676 in nmol/L————being a LDL cholesterol (C) reading of 139 mg/dL
* small LDL # P = 1,021 nmol/L —————yikes! you advise smLDL be less than 117 nmol/L
* HDL # of particles = 28.8 umol/L ————–being a HDL C reading of 45 mg/dL
* Triglycerides = 90 mg/dL ————– true, I never struggled with my weight

(B) May 2011 2nd NMR after another 4 months but added in more fat (1 teaspoon highly concentrated fish oil daily, 90% chocolate, handfulls of nuts, more olive oil and kept coconut oil at 1 tablespoon daily for a controlled experiment), added 500 mg Niacin 3 times a day (in stages up to1,500 mg. total daily), 6000 IU daily vitamin D, deliberately cut out all grains except for social politeness and substituted in daily Koji fermented brown rice (rustic Amazake):
** LDL # P……………= 976 nmol/L ——————————– being LDL C of 100 mg/dL
** small LDL # P …. = 96 nmol/L ——————————– nice surprise
** HDL # P ………… = 27.3 umol/L ——————————being an increase to HDL C of 64 mg/dL
** Triglycerides …… = 42 mg/dL ——————————– despite daily carbs over 150 gr. daily

(C) Dec. 2011 3rd NMR after another 7 more months thinking Doc’s advice is worthwhile I added in yet more fat (mainly daily 2 tablespoons of coconut oil, more 90% chocolate), bumped Niacin up to 1,000 mg twice a day (2,000 mg. total daily), cut out the Amazake, kept up the vitamin D adding daily vitamin K & daily ate main mid-day meal out as lunch on spicy Thai & Chinese fish/shrimp/soup/rice meals (my next control):
*** LDL # P ………. = 764 nmol/L ————— being LDL C of 107 mg/dL ( 2x coconut’s saturated fat)
***small LDL # P… = less than 90 nmol/L ——–surprised me NMR can’t count lower
***HDL # P ……… = 41.4 umol/L ——————– being an increase to HDL C of 88 mg/dL
*** Triglycerides ….= 43 mg/dL ——————- daily carbs below ~ 120 gr. & lost too much weight

Isn't that great? Spectacular job, Might!

MIght achieved values that are superior to that achievable with, say, a high-dose statin strategy. Statins only reduce total LDL particles, reducing small LDL in a non-selective way. And, of course, this diet does not cause muscle aches, memory loss, nor liver problems.

Something to consider: As the diet has become so effective, we can reduce our reliance on niacin. In fact, the benefits of niacin diminish substantially, as small LDL is reduced, HDL increased, triglycerides decreased, and postprandial lipoproteins subdued with the diet only.

Anybody following the discussions in these pages know that: Limiting carbohydrate intake reduces risk for coronary heart disease and heart attack.

First of all, why do conventional diets advocate restricting saturated and total fat? From the standpoint of surrogate markers of cardiovascular risk, cutting saturated and total fat reduces total cholesterol; reduces calculated LDL cholesterol; and may reduce c-reactive protein modestly (an index of inflammation). It also increases blood sugar and HbA1c (reflecting the prior 60 days blood sugars), increases glycation of the proteins of the body leading to cataracts, arthritis, and hypertension.

Problem: Total cholesterol is a combination of HDL cholesterol, an estimate of VLDL cholesterol (triglycerides), and LDL cholesterol. It is a composite of both "good" things (HDL) and "bad" things (LDL and VLDL). Cutting saturated and total fat results in reduced HDL, increased VLDL/triglycerides, and a reduction in calculated LDL. Pretty weak stuff. The last item, i.e., reduction in calculated LDL, is not even a real phenomenon. In fact, the net effect in most genotypes (genetic types) may be negative: increased heart disease risk.

In contrast, what is the effect of reducing carbohydrate without restricting fat? (In the approach I use, we start with elimination of the most destructive of carbohydrates, wheat, followed by reducing exposure to other carbohydrates, especially cornstarch and corn products, sugar, and oats.) If, say, we cut carbohydrate intake into the range of a truly low-carbohydrate diet of 10-15 grams per meal ("net" carbs, or total carbohydrates minus fiber), then we witness a number of metabolic transformations:

Reduced fasting triglycerides and VLDL
Reduced postprandial (after-eating) triglycerides, chylomicrons, and chylomicron remnants
Increased HDL and shift towards large HDL particles (presumably more protective)
Reduced small LDL particles
Reduced glycation and oxidation of small LDL particles
Reduced hemoglobin A1c
Reduced c-reactive protein and other inflammatory markers
Reduced blood pressure

By slashing carbohydrates, we also witness weight loss from visceral fat, reversal of pre-diabetes and diabetes, and reduced phenomena of glycation. And, if the wheat-free part of low-carb is maintained, you can also see marked improvement in gastrointestinal health, relief from joint pains, relief from leg edema, relief from migraine headaches, improved behavior and ability to concentrate in children with impaired learning, ADHD, and autism, better mood, deeper sleep. You will see multiple inflammatory and autoimmune diseases improve or completely relieved, such as rheumatoid arthritis and ulcerative colitis.

Having personally gone down the diabetic path and back by cutting the fat in my diet, now maintaining a HbA1c of 4.8% with fasting glucose 84 mg/d; (without medications), there should be no remaining doubt: Low-carb diets, especially if wheat-free, dramatically reduce the factors leading to heart disease; low-fat diets worsen the factors leading to heart disease.

Richer than a cookie, heavier than a muffin, brownies are ordinarily an indulgence that leaves you ashamed of your lack of restraint. Have one . . . or two or three, and you will surely pack on a pound of belly fat.

But these mocha walnut brownies, as with other recipes I provide, will not pack on the pounds. With no wheat to trigger appetite, nor any readily-digestible carbohydrate to generate blood sugar highs and lows, you can have a nice brownie or two or three and nothing bad happens: You don’t send blood sugar sky-high, don’t trigger formation of small LDL particles and triglycerides, you don’t trigger appetite, you don’t gain a pound of belly fat. You simply have your brownie(s) and enjoy them.

Serve these brownies plain or topped with cream cheese, natural peanut or almond butter, or dipped in coffee.

Ingredients:
8 ounces unsweetened baking chocolate (100% chocolate)
4 tablespoons coconut oil or butter, melted
2 large eggs, separated
½ cup coconut milk (or sour cream)
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
2 cups ground almonds
2 tablespoons coconut flour
1 cup chopped walnuts
¼ cup unsweetened cocoa powder
2 teaspoons instant espresso
Sweetener equivalent to 1 cup sugar or to taste (e.g., liquid stevia, Truvía, erythritol)

Preheat oven to 350º F.

Melt chocolate using double boiler method or in 15-second increments in microwave. Stir in melted coconut oil or butter.

In small bowl, beat egg whites until frothy. Add egg whites, egg yolks, coconut milk, and vanilla extract to chocolate mixture and mix thoroughly by hand.

In separate bowl, combine ground almonds, coconut flour, walnuts, cocoa powder, espresso, and sweetener. Mix thoroughly.

Add dry mix to chocolate mix and mix together thoroughly. If dough is too stiff, add additional coconut milk, one tablespoon at a time.

Place mixture in 9-inch baking pan and bake for 25 -30 minutes or until toothpick withdraws dry.

Eliminate modern high-yield semi-dwarf Triticum aestivum . . . and what is the effect on appetite?

A reduction in appetite is among the most common and profound experiences resulting from wheat elimination. I know that I have personally felt it: Wake up in the morning, little interest in breakfast for several hours. Lunch? Maybe I'll have a few bites of something. Dinner . . . well, I'd like to exercise first.

The wheatless report that:

--Appetite diminishes to the point where you can't remember whether you've eaten or not. It is not uncommon to miss a meal, perfectly content. Calorie intake drops by 400 calories per day, on average, calories you otherwise would not have needed but all went to . . . you know where.
--Hunger feels different: It's not the gnawing, rumbling hunger that plagues you every 2 hours. In its place, you will find that hunger feels like a soft reminder that, gee, maybe it's time to have something to eat because you haven't had anything in--what?--4 to 6 hours. And it's a subtle reminder, not a desperate hunt that makes you knock people aside at the food bar, steal coworkers' lunches stored in the refrigerator, salivating at the mere thought of food.
--The simplest foods satisfy--It no longer requires an all-you-can-eat buffet to satisfy, but a few small pieces of healthy food. (Yeah, but what happens to revenues at Kraft, Nabisco, and Kelloggs, not to mention the revenues at agribusiness giants ADM and Monsanto? Slash consumption by, say, 30%, you likewise slash revenues by 30%. What would shareholders say?)
--Even prolonged periods of not eating, i.e., fasting, is endured with ease.

Hunger and the relentless search for something to eat disappear for most people. By eliminating the appetite-stimulating properties of wheat, we return to a natural state of eating for sustenance, to satisfy physiologic need. We are no longer victims of this incredibly powerful appetite-stimulant called gliadin from wheat.

This is why many diets fail: They fail to remove this powerful appetite stimulant. You might eat only lean meats, limit your calories, and exercise 90 minutes per day, but as long as the gliadin protein is pushing your appetite button, you will want to eat more or you will have to mount monumental willpower to resist it. You can lose 20 pounds on phase 1 of the South Beach diet, for instance, only to regain it in phases 2 and 3 when "healthy whole grains" are added back.

So the key is to remove the gliadin protein from your life, i.e., eliminate all things wheat.

If you've got a serious chocolate addiction and you'd like to make it as healthy as possible, give this X-rated dark chocolate a try.

I call it X-rated because it is certain to not satisfy young, sugar-craving palates, but is appropriate for only the most serious chocolate craver. This is a way to obtain the rich flavors and textures of cocoa, the health benefits (e.g., blood pressure reduction, antioxidation) of cocoa flavonoids, while obtaining none of the sugars/carbohydrates . . . and certainly no wheat!

It is easy to make, requiring just a few ingredients, a few steps, and a few minutes. Set aside and save for an indulgence, e.g., dip into natural peanut or almond butter.

Ingredients:
8 ounces 100% unsweetened cocoa
5 tablespoons coconut oil, melted
1/2 cup dry roasted pistachios
1/4 cup whole flaxseeds or chia seeds
Truvia or other non-aqueous sweetener

Using double-boiler method, melt cocoa. Alternatively, melt cocoa in microwave in 15-20 second increments. Stir in coconut oil, pistachios, and flaxseeds or chia seeds. Stir in sweetener, mixing thoroughly. (Note that the sweetener must be non-aqueous, as water-based sweeteners will separate in the oils.)

Lay a sheet of parchment paper out on a large baking pan. Pour chocolate mixture slowly onto paper, tilting pan carefully to spread evenly until thickness of thick cardboard obtained. Place pan in refrigerator or freezer for 20 minutes.

Remove chocolate and break by hand into pieces of desired size.

At the start, Ted had a ton of small LDL particles. His starting (NMR) lipoprotien values:

LDL particle number: 2644 nmol/L

Small LDL: 2301 nmol/L

In other words, approximately 85% of all LDL particles were abnormally small. I showed Ted how to use diet to markedly reduce small LDL particles, including elimination of wheat, limiting other carbohydrates, and even counting carbohydrates to keep the quantity no higher than 15 grams per meal ("net" carbs).

Ted comes back 6 months later, having lost 14 pounds in the process (and now with weight stabilized). Another round of lipoproteins show:

LDL particle number: 1532 nmol/L

Small LDL: 799 nmol/L

Better, but not perfect. small LDL persists, representing nearly 50% of total LDL particle number.

So I quiz Ted about his diet. "Gee, I really stick to this diet. I have nothing made of wheat, no sugars. I count my carbs and I almost never go higher . . . except on Fridays."

"What happens on Friday?" I asked.

"That's when I'm bad. Not really bad. Maybe just a couple of slices of pizza. Or I'll go out for a big custard cone or something. That wouldn't do it, would it?"

That's the explanation. Your liver is well-equipped to recognize normal, large LDL particles. Large LDL particles therefore "live" for only a couple of days in the bloodstream. But the human liver does not recognize the peculiar configuration of small LDL particles, so it lets them pass--over and over and over again. The result: Once triggered by, say two slices of pizza, small LDL particles persist for 5 days, sometimes longer.

So Ted's one "bad" day per week is enough to allow a substantial quantity of small LDL particles to persist. While a fat indulgence (if there is such a thing) pushes large LDL up, the effect is relatively short-lived. Have a carbohydrate indulgence, on the other hand, and small LDL particles persist for up to a week. It means that Ted's one "bad" day per week is enough to allow his small LDL particles to persist at this level, preventing him from gaining full control over coronary plaque.

It also means that, if you have blood drawn for lipoprotein analysis but had a carbohydrate goodie within the previous week, small LDL particles may be exaggeratedly high.

More and more people in my clinic are showing HDL cholesterol values of 80 mg/dl or higher, males included.

Think about it: Nationwide, average HDL for males is 42 mg/dl and for females 52 mg/dl. Even though these average values are generally regarded as favorable, HDL cholesterol values at these levels are nearly always associated with higher levels of triglycerides, postprandial (after-eating) lipoprotein abnormalities, and excessive quantities of small LDL particles.

HDL particles are, of course, protective and are powerfully anti-oxidative. Higher levels of HDL have been associated with reduced potential for cancer, as well as reduced risk for heart disease.

Following the simple regimen that we follow to gain control over coronary plaque has therefore increased levels of HDL to heights that are uncommon in the rest of the population, levels that readily top 80, 90, or 100 mg/dl. That regimen includes:

1) Elimination of all wheat--Yes, consumption of "healthy whole grains" sets you up to have lower HDL levels; elimination of wheat increases HDL.
2) Limited carbohydrate consumption--While eliminating wheat is a powerful nutritional strategy to increase HDL, non-wheat carbohydrates like quinoa, millet, beans, rice, and fruit can still cause high triglycerides that lead to reduced levels of HDL. Limited exposure helps keep HDL at higher levels.
3) Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation--Because omega-3 fatty acids reduce both triglycerides and blunt the postprandial rise in lipoproteins that can cause HDL degradation, HDL rises with omega-3s from fish oil.
4) Vitamin D supplementation--The effect is slow, but it is BIG. HDL just goes up and up and up over about 2 years of supplementation. Before vitamin D, HDL levels of 60 mg/dl were the best I could hope for in most people. Now 80 mg/dl is an everyday occurrence.

Other factors can also be used to increase HDL levels, such as weight loss, red wine and alcohol, exercise, cocoa flavonoids, green tea, and niacin. But following the regimen above sends HDL through the roof in the majority.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Melatonin is fascinating stuff.

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

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

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

Melatonin reduces night blood pressure in patients with nocturnal hypertension.

Prolonged melatonin administration decreases nocturnal blood pressure in women.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) The drug industry

2) The health insurance industry

3) Hospitals

4) Fear of litigation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

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

Nonetheless, the response is telling. Of 82 respondents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Better education of physicians and the public, and

2) More effective treatment options.

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

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

Just a muse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Vitamin D Newsletter

May, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does vitamin D treat cancer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eliminate wheat flour products

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

You're going to hate this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

60-year old man dies of high cholesterol

Back to basics: Coronary calcium

Myocardial infraction

Diet is superior to drugs

Low-carb is heart healthy

Mocha Walnut Brownies

Are you hungry?

Chocolate . . . for adults only

"Friday is my bad day"

HDL 80 mg/dl

A tan does not equal vitamin D

Confessions of a former drug company patsy

Planned obsolence

Melatonin for high blood pressure?

The forces that shape heatlh care

Lipoprotein(a): Surprising Poll Results

Are endogenous nutritional supplements better?

Vitamin D Newsletter reprinted

Biggest bang for your nutritional buck

Can skinny be fat?